[RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[viro]

	Current code (at least on x86 and alpha) appears to assume that
you can't call disable_irq()/enable_irq() unless you have registered
that irq.

	However, ide-probe.c::probe_hwif() contains the following:
        /*
         * We must always disable IRQ, as probe_for_drive will assert IRQ, but
         * we'll install our IRQ driver much later...
         */
        irqd = hwif->irq;
        if (irqd)
                disable_irq(hwif->irq);
and later
        /*
         * Use cached IRQ number. It might be (and is...) changed by probe
         * code above
         */
        if (irqd)
                enable_irq(irqd);

That happens *way* before we call register_irq().  Current tree barfs on
that in all sorts of interesting ways.  Most notably, we get irq enabled
and with NULL ->action for a while.  If an interrupt comes during that
time, we'll get IRQ_INPROGRESS set and not reset until later register_irq()
(see handle_irq() for details).  Note that calling disable_irq() after that
will kill us on SMP - it will spin waiting for IRQ_INPROGRESS to go away.

Moreover, if somebody calls register_irq() while we are at it, we'll get
->depth reset to 0.  enable_irq() will try to decrement depth and will get
very unhappy about the situation.

What do we really want to do here?  I see only two variants:
	a) allow enable_irq()/disable_irq() regardless of having the thing
registered.  IRQ_DISABLED would be set iff ->depth is positive or ->action
is NULL.  register_irq() wouldn't touch the ->depth and would enable IRQ
only if ->depth is 0.  enable_irq() would not enable the thing unless ->action
was non-NULL.  That would work, but I wouldn't bet a dime on correctness -
e.g. currently disable_irq() followed by free_irq() works fine and drivers
might very well leave ->depth positive when they are removed.  With new
scheme that would be deadly.
	b) have ide-probe.c register a dummy handler for that period.
Then it would be allowed to do what it does.  Said handler would simply
return IRQ_NONE and be done with that.  Add BUG() to disable_irq()/enable_irq()
for cases when they are called with NULL ->action.

	Note that scenario above is absolutely real - 2.4.21 and later
hang on DS10 since their IDE chipset (alim15x3.c) does generate an interrupt
after the probe code had called enable_irq().  With obvious results -
ide_intr() is never called afterwards.  On 2.6 it doesn't happen only
because register_irq() forcibly drops IRQ_INPROGRESS, which hides that
problem, but doesn't help with other scenarios (e.g. somebody sharing the
same IRQ and doing register_irq() before we call enable_irq()).

Comments?

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[Linus Torvalds]

[ Executive summary: I think 2.6.x does the right thing as-is, although 
  there is definitely some ugly corners there. ]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:
>
> 	Current code (at least on x86 and alpha) appears to assume that
> you can't call disable_irq()/enable_irq() unless you have registered
> that irq.

Why? It was definitely not designed to do that - the irq disable is an irq 
_descriptor_ feature, not a irq handler feature. 

So irq registration should have absolutely zero to do with anything.

> That happens *way* before we call register_irq().  Current tree barfs on
> that in all sorts of interesting ways.  Most notably, we get irq enabled
> and with NULL ->action for a while.

Which should be perfectly fine. In fact, it's _designed_ to be perfectly 
fine, since this is how irq probing is also implemented.

This is not "barfing".

>				  If an interrupt comes during that
> time, we'll get IRQ_INPROGRESS set and not reset until later register_irq()
> (see handle_irq() for details).  Note that calling disable_irq() after that
> will kill us on SMP - it will spin waiting for IRQ_INPROGRESS to go away.

Now _this_ is a bug waiting to happen. I don't think it actually happens 
now (since anybody who does disable_irq() _will_ either have registered 
the irq already or will do so soon, but I agree that it's just trouble 
waiting to happen.

I think the fix to that is to just add a trivial test for "if the handler
list is empty, don't bother synchronizing" in disable_irq(), since clearly
if the list is empty there is nothing to synchronize _with_. After all,
the synchronization is there just to make sure no handler runs
concurrently on another CPU.

(We can't add that test to "synchronize_irq()" itself without more
surgery, since the irq _freeing_ path actually removes the entry from the
queue first, so in that case synchronize_irq() will normally see an empty
irq handler list)

> Moreover, if somebody calls register_irq() while we are at it, we'll get
> ->depth reset to 0.  enable_irq() will try to decrement depth and will get
> very unhappy about the situation.

Yeah, that depth reset I actually worried about at some time. It's never
been a problem though, since concurrent device probing just doesn't happen
and basically isn't really supported. We discussed it for bus probing, and 
the rule is to just not do it.

The reason I worried about the depth reset is actually different: we've
historically not had a good way to atomically enable a PCI device _and_
request its interrupt. Nobody has ever really complained, but if anybody 
ever wants to do this, then the way to do it would be to

 - find out the irq
 - disable it
 - request the irq
 - enable the PCI routing for it
 - set up the device
 - enable the irq

and the thing is, the disable should actually happen _before_ we request 
the irq, because we potentially could not afford to take an interrupt with 
the device incompletely set up.

NOTE! This is not something we support, and it's not something I've heard 
people complain about, but it is something I think makes sense. And it 
definitely implies that we should be able to
 - disable irq's regardless of whether we have registered them
 - not reset the disable depth on irq request.

> What do we really want to do here?  I see only two variants:
> 	a) allow enable_irq()/disable_irq() regardless of having the thing
> registered.

Absolutely.

> 	b) have ide-probe.c register a dummy handler for that period.

No. That's wrong. That just causes lockups with level-triggered PCI 
devices, so the "dummy handler" really needs to know a lot about how to 
turn the interrupt off. Which is nasty before the driver has even set up 
the device completely, and may be in the middle of futzing with it.

This is why "disable_irq()" really exists. Which is why (a) is what the 
current code is _supposed_ to do.

> 	Note that scenario above is absolutely real - 2.4.21 and later
> hang on DS10 since their IDE chipset (alim15x3.c) does generate an interrupt
> after the probe code had called enable_irq().  With obvious results -
> ide_intr() is never called afterwards.  On 2.6 it doesn't happen only
> because register_irq() forcibly drops IRQ_INPROGRESS, which hides that
> problem, but doesn't help with other scenarios (e.g. somebody sharing the
> same IRQ and doing register_irq() before we call enable_irq()).

As far as I can tell, 2.6.x is doing all the right things. Modulo the (not
really supported) concurrent device probing, and the (not implemented) 
atomic irq requesting.

Note that the IRQ_INPROGRESS thing was literally the bit that autodetect
used to test, it got changed it to IRQ_WAITING to clarify the code and
avoid bad interactions with the other uses of IRQ_INPROGRESS.

And note that we do _not_ clear IRQ_INPROGRESS on "action == NULL" very
much on purpose: that "action == NULL" thing also happens if the IRQ is
disabled, and we need to get the edge replay right. This is why
request_irq() literally _needs_ to clear that bit in 2.6.x.

So the fix is to make 2.4.x do what 2.6.x does, methinks.

Possibly with a more robust implementation (ie the conditional
synchronize_irq() thing in disable_irq()).

And while I agree that the depth clearing is bogus, but I'd be worried
about removing it in case some driver actually depends on it (ie
historically it has actually been ok to do:

	disable_irq(irq);
	.. set up device ..
	request_irq(irq, ..);	// This will also enable the irq

even though it's ugly, and I hope nobody does it).

		Linus

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[viro]

On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 07:29:10PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >				  If an interrupt comes during that
> > time, we'll get IRQ_INPROGRESS set and not reset until later register_irq()
> > (see handle_irq() for details).  Note that calling disable_irq() after that
> > will kill us on SMP - it will spin waiting for IRQ_INPROGRESS to go away.
> 
> Now _this_ is a bug waiting to happen. I don't think it actually happens 
> now (since anybody who does disable_irq() _will_ either have registered 
> the irq already or will do so soon, but I agree that it's just trouble 
> waiting to happen.

Ummm...  probe_hwif() is a good example of the opposite - it can fail
past the point where it disables irq and that means no register_irq()
after enable_irq() call on cleanup.

> I think the fix to that is to just add a trivial test for "if the handler
> list is empty, don't bother synchronizing" in disable_irq(), since clearly
> if the list is empty there is nothing to synchronize _with_. After all,
> the synchronization is there just to make sure no handler runs
> concurrently on another CPU.

How about
 
        action = NULL;
        if (!(status & (IRQ_DISABLED | IRQ_INPROGRESS))) {
                action = desc->action;
                status &= ~IRQ_PENDING; /* we commit to handling */
		if (likely(action))
			status |= IRQ_INPROGRESS; /* we are handling it */
        }
        desc->status = status;

in handle_irq()?

> As far as I can tell, 2.6.x is doing all the right things. Modulo the (not
> really supported) concurrent device probing, and the (not implemented) 
> atomic irq requesting.
> 
> Note that the IRQ_INPROGRESS thing was literally the bit that autodetect
> used to test, it got changed it to IRQ_WAITING to clarify the code and
> avoid bad interactions with the other uses of IRQ_INPROGRESS.
> 
> And note that we do _not_ clear IRQ_INPROGRESS on "action == NULL" very
> much on purpose: that "action == NULL" thing also happens if the IRQ is
> disabled, and we need to get the edge replay right. This is why
> request_irq() literally _needs_ to clear that bit in 2.6.x.

	See above - we shouldn't clear it on action == NULL, but we don't
need to set it, AFAICS.
 
> So the fix is to make 2.4.x do what 2.6.x does, methinks.

ObOtherFun:  There's another bogosity in quoted ide-probe.c code, according
to dwmw2 - he says that there are PCI IDE cards that get IRQ 0, so the
test for hwif->irq is b0rken.  We probably should stop overloading
->irq == 0 for "none given", but I'm not sure that we *have* a value
that would never be used as an IRQ number on all platforms...

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:
> 
> How about
>  
>         action = NULL;
>         if (!(status & (IRQ_DISABLED | IRQ_INPROGRESS))) {
>                 action = desc->action;
>                 status &= ~IRQ_PENDING; /* we commit to handling */
> 		if (likely(action))
> 			status |= IRQ_INPROGRESS; /* we are handling it */
>         }
>         desc->status = status;
> 
> in handle_irq()?

I don't mind it per se, but I don't much see the point either. 
handle_irq() is pretty timing-critical, so we should keep it as fast as 
humanly possible. In contrast, all the other paths that care about 
IRQ_INPROGRESS are _not_ generally timing-critical, which is why I'd 
rather have them do the extra work.

In particular, in this case the only other path that seems to care would 
be "disable_irq()", which does indeed care (well "request_irq()" also 
cares, but request_irq() already clears the bit).

> 	See above - we shouldn't clear it on action == NULL, but we don't
> need to set it, AFAICS.

I agree that we don't need to set it. It's more of a streamlining 
question.

For 2.4.x it might also be a question of "which patch is smaller"  
(conceptually and in practice). I think they end up being exactly the same
in this case.

> > So the fix is to make 2.4.x do what 2.6.x does, methinks.
> 
> ObOtherFun:  There's another bogosity in quoted ide-probe.c code, according
> to dwmw2 - he says that there are PCI IDE cards that get IRQ 0, so the
> test for hwif->irq is b0rken.  We probably should stop overloading
> ->irq == 0 for "none given", but I'm not sure that we *have* a value
> that would never be used as an IRQ number on all platforms...

The BIOS defines irq 0 in the PCI config space to be "no irq" as far as I
know, and on all PC platforms I've ever heard of it's not a usable irq for
generic PCI devices (it's wired to the timer thing). 

All PCI routing chipsets I know about also make "irq0" mean "disabled". 

Which is not to say that a badly configured setup might not do it, but it 
really sounds fundamentally broken. 

		Linus

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[Russell King]

On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 07:53:36PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:
> > ObOtherFun:  There's another bogosity in quoted ide-probe.c code, according
> > to dwmw2 - he says that there are PCI IDE cards that get IRQ 0, so the
> > test for hwif->irq is b0rken.  We probably should stop overloading
> > ->irq == 0 for "none given", but I'm not sure that we *have* a value
> > that would never be used as an IRQ number on all platforms...
> 
> The BIOS defines irq 0 in the PCI config space to be "no irq" as far as I
> know, and on all PC platforms I've ever heard of it's not a usable irq for
> generic PCI devices (it's wired to the timer thing). 
> 
> All PCI routing chipsets I know about also make "irq0" mean "disabled". 

Correct for x86.  For other architectures, it many not be so.  On ARM for
example, it is quite normal for IRQ0 to be used.  Hopefully it'll be
something which generic code won't see, but that isn't always true.
Someone else might actually follow the PCI specs and use "255" to mean
"no irq" on their PCI bus.

Irregardless of all that, ARM has always had the following in asm/irq.h:

/*
 * Use this value to indicate lack of interrupt
 * capability
 */
#ifndef NO_IRQ
#define NO_IRQ  ((unsigned int)(-1))
#endif

and each time this topic comes up, I always suggest that this idea needs
to be propagated to the rest of the kernel - a method by which an interrupt
number can be tested to check whether it is real.  I don't particularly
care if its a constant, or a function-like thing, eg for x86:

#define no_irq(irq) ((irq) == 0)

-- 
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)	http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/
      Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
      maintainer of:  2.6 PCMCIA      - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
                      2.6 Serial core

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

> > 
> > ObOtherFun:  There's another bogosity in quoted ide-probe.c code, according
> > to dwmw2 - he says that there are PCI IDE cards that get IRQ 0, so the
> > test for hwif->irq is b0rken.  We probably should stop overloading
> > ->irq == 0 for "none given", but I'm not sure that we *have* a value
> > that would never be used as an IRQ number on all platforms...
> 
> The BIOS defines irq 0 in the PCI config space to be "no irq" as far as I
> know, and on all PC platforms I've ever heard of it's not a usable irq for
> generic PCI devices (it's wired to the timer thing). 
> 
> All PCI routing chipsets I know about also make "irq0" mean "disabled". 
> 
> Which is not to say that a badly configured setup might not do it, but it 
> really sounds fundamentally broken. 

Well, irq 0 is a perfectly valid IRQ on a number of non-x86 platforms,
some embedded platforms for example, and iirc, the Apple G5 even has
the serverworks IDE on IRQ 0 ;)

That's why we have defined IRQ_NONE a while ago (this was in 2.4, I
don'tk now if that made the trip to 2.6, I'm away from my sources
at the moment).

Ben.

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[Roman Zippel]

Hi,

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> And while I agree that the depth clearing is bogus, but I'd be worried
> about removing it in case some driver actually depends on it (ie
> historically it has actually been ok to do:
> 
> 	disable_irq(irq);
> 	.. set up device ..
> 	request_irq(irq, ..);	// This will also enable the irq
> 
> even though it's ugly, and I hope nobody does it).

If there are such cases left, I'd really prefer we fix them, as currently 
nothing protects this against another driver requesting the same irq. To 
make this even more fun the behaviour is also different if the irq is 
shared, as the irq is not enabled in this case.
In the ide driver I'd really like to see that at the time the probe 
function reenables the interrupt there is either an irq handler installed 
or it failed. On the Amiga we also have always problems with this, as the 
interrupt must be acknowledged by the driver, so we have to be careful not 
to leave anything pending. The irq handler would automatically take care 
of this and would make this simpler.

bye, Roman

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[viro]

On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 07:53:36PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> For 2.4.x it might also be a question of "which patch is smaller"  
> (conceptually and in practice). I think they end up being exactly the same
> in this case.

Unfortunately, they don't (AFAICS) ;-/

BTW, there is another thing that feels odd - we start with IRQ_DISABLED
set for everything and ->depth set to 0.  disable_irq(irq); enable_irq(irq);
gets us into the state where
	a) IRQ_DISABLED is reset
	b) ->depth is 0.
However, any subsequent register_irq();free_irq() gets us back to the
IRQ_DISABLED being set and ->depth set to 0.

IOW, we have very odd rules of IRQ_DISABLED - when ->action is non-NULL,
it's set iff ->depth is positive.  That's nice - if you call disable_irq(),
you know that enable_irq() will undo the effects.

*However*, if you have ->action == NULL, the state depends on history.
Morover, once you've done disable_irq(), you have no way to undo all
effects - enable_irq() will land you in a different state.

It gets particulary ugly when you consider modules - if you do disable_irq(),
poke into the hardware and decide to bail out, there is no way to restore
the original state on cleanup path.  Which leaves us with permanent effects
of failed insmod.

I'm not saying that it's necessary a bug (aside of the issues with
IRQ_INPROGRESS), but it feels like a bug waiting to happen.  If we really
don't care about interrupts arriving after e.g. such failed insmod, why don't
we simply have enable_irq() check that ->action is non-NULL and reset
IRQ_DISABLED only in that case?  Then it would really be an opposite
of disable_irq() in all cases we care about.

I do realize that some code might rely on the current behaviour and call
irq_disable();irq_enable() as a way to reset IRQ_DISABLED when ->action
is NULL.   However, I'd argue that it's a kludge - note that simply calling
enable_irq() will *not* work, you need to call disable_irq() first.  Which
doesn't look like a sane interface...

IOW, the question is: do we want enable_irq() to undo all effects of
disable_irq()?  Whether the current behaviour is intentional or not,
it's worth documenting, IMO...

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:
>
> IOW, the question is: do we want enable_irq() to undo all effects of
> disable_irq()?  Whether the current behaviour is intentional or not,
> it's worth documenting, IMO...

I think yes, it would be clean to make enable_irq() clean up properly. 
That includes clearing the IRQ_INPROGRESS bit along with the IRQ_DISABLED 
but. It won't even make the codepath longer, it just changes a constant.

And yes, I think we should just remove the clearing of depth in 
setup_irq(), _and_ make the enabling of the irq be dependent on depth 
being non-zero.

In 2.6.x terms, we'd like to go towards something like the appended, but 
this actually has a _different_ problem: we have separate "->startup()" vs 
"->enable()" functions for the irq controller, and this means that if the 
interrupt was disabled when the first irq handler was requested, 
"->startup()" wouldn't be called at all.

So my suggestion would be:
 - do the IRQ_INPROGRESS clearing (safe, since disable_irq() will have 
   waited for it if it was valid)
 - leave the depth reset as-is for now, and think about how we'd like to 
   solve it.
 - make the synchronize_irq() conditional in irq_disable() (2.6.x now
   already does that part, so it's not in the patch)

Hmm?

		Linus

----
--- 1.43/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c	Wed Oct  8 20:47:36 2003
+++ edited/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c	Thu Oct  9 08:55:54 2003
@@ -380,7 +380,7 @@
 	spin_lock_irqsave(&desc->lock, flags);
 	switch (desc->depth) {
 	case 1: {
-		unsigned int status = desc->status & ~IRQ_DISABLED;
+		unsigned int status = desc->status & ~(IRQ_DISABLED | IRQ_INPROGRESS);
 		desc->status = status;
 		if ((status & (IRQ_PENDING | IRQ_REPLAY)) == IRQ_PENDING) {
 			desc->status = status | IRQ_REPLAY;
@@ -884,8 +884,7 @@
 
 	*p = new;
 
-	if (!shared) {
-		desc->depth = 0;
+	if (!shared && !desc->depth) {
 		desc->status &= ~(IRQ_DISABLED | IRQ_AUTODETECT | IRQ_WAITING | IRQ_INPROGRESS);
 		desc->handler->startup(irq);
 	}

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[viro]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 09:01:36AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > IOW, the question is: do we want enable_irq() to undo all effects of
> > disable_irq()?  Whether the current behaviour is intentional or not,
> > it's worth documenting, IMO...
> 
> I think yes, it would be clean to make enable_irq() clean up properly. 
> That includes clearing the IRQ_INPROGRESS bit along with the IRQ_DISABLED 
> but. It won't even make the codepath longer, it just changes a constant.
> 
> And yes, I think we should just remove the clearing of depth in 
> setup_irq(), _and_ make the enabling of the irq be dependent on depth 
> being non-zero.
> 
> In 2.6.x terms, we'd like to go towards something like the appended, but 
> this actually has a _different_ problem: we have separate "->startup()" vs 
> "->enable()" functions for the irq controller, and this means that if the 
> interrupt was disabled when the first irq handler was requested, 
> "->startup()" wouldn't be called at all.
> 
> So my suggestion would be:
>  - do the IRQ_INPROGRESS clearing (safe, since disable_irq() will have 
>    waited for it if it was valid)
>  - leave the depth reset as-is for now, and think about how we'd like to 
>    solve it.
>  - make the synchronize_irq() conditional in irq_disable() (2.6.x now
>    already does that part, so it's not in the patch)
> 
> Hmm?

I've looked through the uses of IRQ_DISABLED in 2.6.  Fun things found:

a) on alpha:
void
i8259a_end_irq(unsigned int irq)
{
        if (!(irq_desc[irq].status & (IRQ_DISABLED|IRQ_INPROGRESS)))
                i8259a_enable_irq(irq);
}
and similar in other ->end() 

on x86:
static void end_8259A_irq (unsigned int irq)
{
        if (!(irq_desc[irq].status & (IRQ_DISABLED|IRQ_INPROGRESS)) &&
                                                        irq_desc[irq].action)
                enable_8259A_irq(irq);
}

b) if we get *two* interrupts while irq is enabled and not registered, we'll
be stuck with IRQ_PENDING in addition to IRQ_INPROGRESS.  Which can, AFAICS,
confuse other code.

c) mind-boggling amount of code duplication - are there any plans to take
that stuff to kernel/*?

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:
>
> a) on x86:
> static void end_8259A_irq (unsigned int irq)
> {
>         if (!(irq_desc[irq].status & (IRQ_DISABLED|IRQ_INPROGRESS)) &&
>				 irq_desc[irq].action)
>                enable_8259A_irq(irq);
> }

This matches the "if IRQ is disabled for whatever reason" test in irq.c, 
and as such it makes some amount of sense. However, from a logical 
standpoint it is indeed not very sensible. It's hard to see why the code 
does what it does.

> b) if we get *two* interrupts while irq is enabled and not registered, we'll
> be stuck with IRQ_PENDING in addition to IRQ_INPROGRESS.  Which can, AFAICS,
> confuse other code.

This should not happen: the first one will shut up the interrupt. That's 
in fact what (a) does - it refuses to enable the interrupt again (and it 
will have been shut up by the "ack".

(Other interrupt controllers _can_ get multiple interrupts while disabled, 
like the APIC edge-triggered case. But they have different logic to take 
care of this - see io_apic.c and the logic there in the 
[ack|end]_edge_ioapic_irq).

In short, this is all behaviour that depends on the low-level irq 
controller. It may not be very obvious what is going on, but I think it is 
correct (and again, it might be worth cleaning up some day. Not now)

> c) mind-boggling amount of code duplication - are there any plans to take
> that stuff to kernel/*?

Yes. It was actually tried a few months ago, but some of the other 
architectures have very different interrupt setups, so it got dropped. But 
it will almost certainly happen eventually: we've had bugs fixed on x86 
that ended up living a lot longer on other architectures.

			Linus

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[viro]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 11:03:14AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > a) on x86:
> > static void end_8259A_irq (unsigned int irq)
> > {
> >         if (!(irq_desc[irq].status & (IRQ_DISABLED|IRQ_INPROGRESS)) &&
> >				 irq_desc[irq].action)
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >                enable_8259A_irq(irq);
> > }
> 
> This matches the "if IRQ is disabled for whatever reason" test in irq.c, 
> and as such it makes some amount of sense. However, from a logical 
> standpoint it is indeed not very sensible. It's hard to see why the code 
> does what it does.

The underlined bit is absent on alpha version of the same function.

Note that this piece is bogus - if .action is NULL, we are already caught
by IRQ_INPROGRESS check.  So it's not exactly a bug, but considering
your arguments about exact same check slightly earlier in handle_irq()...

It's from cset1.437.22.19 by mingo; the same changeset had done unconditional
removal of IRQ_INPROGRESS, so there it made sense.  After the irq.c part
had been reverted (1.497.61.30 from you), i8259.c one should be killed
too, AFAICS...

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:
> 
> The underlined bit is absent on alpha version of the same function.
> 
> Note that this piece is bogus - if .action is NULL, we are already caught
> by IRQ_INPROGRESS check.  So it's not exactly a bug, but considering
> your arguments about exact same check slightly earlier in handle_irq()...

Yes. I'm definitely not claiming the code is beautiful. 

I think it happens to be working ;)

> It's from cset1.437.22.19 by mingo; the same changeset had done unconditional
> removal of IRQ_INPROGRESS, so there it made sense.  After the irq.c part
> had been reverted (1.497.61.30 from you), i8259.c one should be killed
> too, AFAICS...

Yeah, the IRQ_INPROGRESS removal in handle_irq() was buggy: it caused the
bit to be spuriously cleared if an interrupt happened while the previous
interrupt was active (which will _not_ happen in the i8259 case, but does
happen in the edge-triggered case).

The problem, I think, is that all this code grew fairly organically, and 
nobody ever sat down and wrote down the rules. 

Which is why I think it _works_, but it's clearly nonoptimal and sometimes 
confusing.

I suspect the 2.4.x situation is even worse. 

		Linus

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[Zwane Mwaikambo]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Russell King wrote:

> Correct for x86.  For other architectures, it many not be so.  On ARM for
> example, it is quite normal for IRQ0 to be used.  Hopefully it'll be
> something which generic code won't see, but that isn't always true.
> Someone else might actually follow the PCI specs and use "255" to mean
> "no irq" on their PCI bus.

Unfortunately we wouldn't be able to use that for a test on i386;

IRQ251 -> 10:11
IRQ253 -> 10:13
IRQ255 -> 10:15
IRQ256 -> 10:16
IRQ257 -> 10:17
IRQ258 -> 10:18
IRQ259 -> 10:19

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[Anton Blanchard]

 
> > c) mind-boggling amount of code duplication - are there any plans to take
> > that stuff to kernel/*?
> 
> Yes. It was actually tried a few months ago, but some of the other 
> architectures have very different interrupt setups, so it got dropped. But 
> it will almost certainly happen eventually: we've had bugs fixed on x86 
> that ended up living a lot longer on other architectures.

>From memory at least x86, alpha, ppc32 and ppc64 worked with Andrey's
irq consolidation patches. I'll be pushing for it in 2.7 together with
some macros to abstract away irq_desc[NR_IRQS] completely. (it will
make it easier to support 24 bit irqs on ppc64 and should allow sparc64
to use the consolidated irq code).

Anton

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[Russell King]

On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 03:14:11AM +1000, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> >From memory at least x86, alpha, ppc32 and ppc64 worked with Andrey's
> irq consolidation patches. I'll be pushing for it in 2.7 together with
> some macros to abstract away irq_desc[NR_IRQS] completely. (it will
> make it easier to support 24 bit irqs on ppc64 and should allow sparc64
> to use the consolidated irq code).

(CC list snipped)

>From what I heard, benh was seriously considering changing ppc64 IRQ
stuff in 2.7 to use something like the system we have in ARM.

benh?

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 PCMCIA      - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
                 2.6 Serial core

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 11:19, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 03:14:11AM +1000, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> > >From memory at least x86, alpha, ppc32 and ppc64 worked with Andrey's
> > irq consolidation patches. I'll be pushing for it in 2.7 together with
> > some macros to abstract away irq_desc[NR_IRQS] completely. (it will
> > make it easier to support 24 bit irqs on ppc64 and should allow sparc64
> > to use the consolidated irq code).
> 
> (CC list snipped)
> 
> >From what I heard, benh was seriously considering changing ppc64 IRQ
> stuff in 2.7 to use something like the system we have in ARM.

It's on my list of things to investigate once I've reached OzLabs, indeed.

Right now, I have horrible hacks for the "second" OpenPIC in G5s, and
we are indeed reaching the limits of our current irq model. I don't know
yet what direction I will take though. I'm also considering the possibility
of merging ppc32 and ppc64 archs :)

Ben.

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[Jeff Garzik]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
>>If you can't stop the NIC hardware from generating interrupts, that's a 
>>driver bug.
> 
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> Think shared interrupts here.

I was being specific in what I said :)

Sure, shared interrupts can still call a driver's handler.

But if the driver doesn't stop _its own_ hardware from generating 
interrupts, you've got screaming interrupts the minute it issues 
free_irq and signals it doesn't care anymore.  The driver damn well 
better be able to stop the _NIC hardware_ from generating interrupts :)

	Jeff

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> If you can't stop the NIC hardware from generating interrupts, that's a 
> driver bug.

No it's not.

Think shared interrupts here.

		Linus

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[Jeff Garzik]

Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 19:03, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> 
>>Easily solved with a synchronize_irq()  ;-)
> 
> 
> No. synchronize_irq will do nothing to an irq that is
> still somewhere in the HW path from the device to the core,
> and even in the core it may be queued for some cycles before
> actually delivered.


hmmm, ok :)

Well my main objection is disable_irq+free_irq+enable_irq.  Seems to me 
we'll wind up coding around that.  Maybe a free_and_enable_irq is 
appropriate to avoid such a situation?  Oh well, just thinking out loud...

	Jeff

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 19:03, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> Easily solved with a synchronize_irq()  ;-)

No. synchronize_irq will do nothing to an irq that is
still somewhere in the HW path from the device to the core,
and even in the core it may be queued for some cycles before
actually delivered.

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[Jeff Garzik]

Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 18:38, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
>>Manfred Spraul wrote:
>>
>>>I'd like to use that for nic shutdown for natsemi:
>>>
>>>   disable_irq();
>>>   shutdown_nic();
>>>   free_irq();
>>>   enable_irq();
>>
>>
>>Why not just shutdown the NIC inside spin_lock_irqsave or disable_irq, 
>>and then free_irq separately?
>>
>>If you can't stop the NIC hardware from generating interrupts, that's a 
>>driver bug.  And if the driver cannot handle its interrupt handler 
>>between the spin_unlock_irqrestore() and free_irq() (shared irq case), 
>>it's also buggy.
> 
> 
> Actually you may still get a stale irq ;) The problem is that IRQs are
> typically an asynchronous event, and an irq can be sort of "queued" up
> (especially if it's a level one) in the PIC... though at least this
> won't be a stale level irq so you won't deadlock in an irq handler that
> can do nothing...

Easily solved with a synchronize_irq()  ;-)

As a slight tangent, with MSI coming up, as well as the presence of 
hardware that queues IRQ events asynchronously, we'll want 
synchronize_irq() to handle those cases, even for uniprocess (often 
synchronize_irq is only defined for SMP).


> Anyway, I quite like the idea. I've been trying to avoid taking a lock
> in some similar shutdown routine for sungem, because some bits in there
> need a few ms delay to workaround a chip bug (or machine sleep will
> break) and I want to schedule. Breaking the lock makes things ugly,
> beeing able to just disable_irq before/after is nice.
> 
> The problem of course is when that irq is shared... you are suddently
> shutting off for a potentially long time a neighbour irq, bad bad...
> (at least I know that on pmac, sungem irq is never shared).

You want to disable_irq() then sleep?  ewww...  :)  I think we could 
figure out a better way...

	Jeff

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 18:38, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > I'd like to use that for nic shutdown for natsemi:
> > 
> >    disable_irq();
> >    shutdown_nic();
> >    free_irq();
> >    enable_irq();
> 
> 
> Why not just shutdown the NIC inside spin_lock_irqsave or disable_irq, 
> and then free_irq separately?
> 
> If you can't stop the NIC hardware from generating interrupts, that's a 
> driver bug.  And if the driver cannot handle its interrupt handler 
> between the spin_unlock_irqrestore() and free_irq() (shared irq case), 
> it's also buggy.

Actually you may still get a stale irq ;) The problem is that IRQs are
typically an asynchronous event, and an irq can be sort of "queued" up
(especially if it's a level one) in the PIC... though at least this
won't be a stale level irq so you won't deadlock in an irq handler that
can do nothing...

Anyway, I quite like the idea. I've been trying to avoid taking a lock
in some similar shutdown routine for sungem, because some bits in there
need a few ms delay to workaround a chip bug (or machine sleep will
break) and I want to schedule. Breaking the lock makes things ugly,
beeing able to just disable_irq before/after is nice.

The problem of course is when that irq is shared... you are suddently
shutting off for a potentially long time a neighbour irq, bad bad...
(at least I know that on pmac, sungem irq is never shared).

Ben.
  

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[Jeff Garzik]

Manfred Spraul wrote:
> I'd like to use that for nic shutdown for natsemi:
> 
>    disable_irq();
>    shutdown_nic();
>    free_irq();
>    enable_irq();


Why not just shutdown the NIC inside spin_lock_irqsave or disable_irq, 
and then free_irq separately?

If you can't stop the NIC hardware from generating interrupts, that's a 
driver bug.  And if the driver cannot handle its interrupt handler 
between the spin_unlock_irqrestore() and free_irq() (shared irq case), 
it's also buggy.

	Jeff

Re: [RFC] disable_irq()/enable_irq() semantics and ide-probe.c

[Manfred Spraul]

Linus wrote:

>Nobody has ever really complained, but if anybody 
>ever wants to do this, then the way to do it would be to
>
> - find out the irq
> - disable it
> - request the irq
> - enable the PCI routing for it
> - set up the device
> - enable the irq
>
I'd like to use that for nic shutdown for natsemi:

    disable_irq();
    shutdown_nic();
    free_irq();
    enable_irq();

The irq handler touches registers that restart the nic. Right now I use 
a np->hands_off variable to avoid that.

But I don't know if all systems can support atomic request_irq/free_irq 
calls. request_irq creates /proc/irq/x/cpu_affinity, and I could imagine 
that on some archs it might have perform IPIs to reconfigure the irq 
controller of a remote node.

--
    Manfred