From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Wesley Cheng <wcheng@codeaurora.org>,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, Thinh.Nguyen@synopsys.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
jackp@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] usb: dwc3: Stop active transfers before halting the controller
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 09:06:47 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mu1ecruw.fsf@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200924155005.GB1337044@rowland.harvard.edu>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1884 bytes --]
Hi,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> writes:
>> > Hence, the reason if there was already a pending IRQ triggered, the
>> > dwc3_gadget_disable_irq() won't ensure the IRQ is handled. We can do
>> > something like:
>> > if (!is_on)
>> > dwc3_gadget_disable_irq()
>> > synchronize_irq()
>> > spin_lock_irqsave()
>> > if(!is_on) {
>> > ...
>> >
>> > But the logic to only apply this on the pullup removal case is a little
>> > messy. Also, from my understanding, the spin_lock_irqsave() will only
>> > disable the local CPU IRQs, but not the interrupt line on the GIC, which
>> > means other CPUs can handle it, unless we explicitly set the IRQ
>> > affinity to CPUX.
>>
>> Yeah, the way I understand this can't really happen. But I'm open to
>> being educated. Maybe Alan can explain if this is really possibility?
>
> It depends on the details of the hardware, but yes, it is possible in
> general for an interrupt handler to run after you have turned off the
> device's interrupt-request line. For example:
>
> CPU A CPU B
> --------------------------- ----------------------
> Gets an IRQ from the device
> Calls handler routine spin_lock_irq
> spin_lock_irq Turns off the IRQ line
> ...spins... spin_unlock_irq
> Rest of handler runs
> spin_unlock_irq
>
> That's why we have synchronize_irq(). The usual pattern is something
> like this:
>
> spin_lock_irq(&priv->lock);
> priv->disconnected = true;
> my_disable_irq(priv);
> spin_unlock_irq(&priv->lock);
> synchronize_irq(priv->irq);
>
> And of course this has to be done in a context that can sleep.
>
> Does this answer your question?
It does, thank you Alan. It seems like we don't need a call to
disable_irq(), only synchronize_irq() is enough, however it should be
called with spinlocks released, not held.
Thanks
--
balbi
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 857 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-25 6:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-03 21:09 [PATCH v3] usb: dwc3: Stop active transfers before halting the controller Wesley Cheng
2020-09-04 0:47 ` Thinh Nguyen
2020-09-07 6:20 ` Felipe Balbi
2020-09-08 21:42 ` Wesley Cheng
2020-09-24 7:39 ` Felipe Balbi
2020-09-24 15:50 ` Alan Stern
2020-09-25 6:06 ` Felipe Balbi [this message]
2020-09-25 19:33 ` Wesley Cheng
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87mu1ecruw.fsf@kernel.org \
--to=balbi@kernel.org \
--cc=Thinh.Nguyen@synopsys.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jackp@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=wcheng@codeaurora.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).