From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
To: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Daniel Mack <daniel@zonque.org>,
Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
Sascha Weisenberger <sascha.weisenberger@siemens.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] spi: pxa2xx: Prepare for edge-triggered interrupts
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:33:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b3e0d393-b841-1556-ddd2-5634f12b6f2c@siemens.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87r340eq28.fsf@belgarion.home>
On 2017-01-18 09:21, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> writes:
>
>> On 2017-01-17 08:54, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
>>> Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> When using the a device with edge-triggered interrupts, such as MSIs,
>>>> the interrupt handler has to ensure that there is a point in time during
>>>> its execution where all interrupts sources are silent so that a new
>>>> event can trigger a new interrupt again.
>>>>
>>>> This is achieved here by looping over SSSR evaluation. We need to take
>>>> into account that SSCR1 may be changed by the transfer handler, thus we
>>>> need to redo the mask calculation, at least regarding the volatile
>>>> interrupt enable bit (TIE).
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
>>> Hi Jan,
>>>
>>>> + while (1) {
>>> This bit worries me a bit, as this can be either :
>>> - hogging the SoC's CPU, endlessly running
>>> - or even worse, blocking the CPU for ever
>>>
>>> The question behind is, should this be done in a top-half, or moved to a irq
>>> thread ?
>>
>> Every device with a broken interrupt source can hog CPUs, nothing
>> special with this one. If you don't close the loop in the handler
>> itself, you close it over the hardware retriggering the interrupt over
>> and over again.
> I'm not speaking of a broken interrupt source, I'm speaking of a broken code,
> such as in the handler, or broken status readback, or lack of understanding on
> the status register which may imply the while(1) to loop forever.
>
>> So, I don't see a point in offloading to a thread. The normal case is
>> some TX done (FIFO available) event followed by an RX event, then the
>> transfer is complete, isn't it?
> The point is if you stay forever in the while(1) loop, you can at least have a
> print a backtrace (LOCKUP_DETECTOR).
I won't consider "debugability" as a good reason to move interrupt
handlers into threads. There should be real workload that requires
offloading or specific prioritization.
>
>>> Imagine that on first iteration the handler returns IRQ_NONE, and on second
>>> IRQ_HANDLED. This makes ret IRQ_HANDLED. Yet after the first iteration the
>>> handler should have exited, especially if the interrupt is shared with another
>>> driver.
>>
>> That would be a bug in transfer_handler, because we don't enter it
>> without a reason (status != 0).
> Sure, but can you be sure that all the people modifying the code after you will
> see that also ? The other way will _force_ them to see it.
>
>>> Another thing which is along what Andy already said : it would be better
>>> practice to have this loop in the form :
>>> do {
>>> ...
>>> } while (exit_condition_not_met);
>>
>> This implies code duplication in order to calculate the condition
>> (mask...). I can do this if desired, I wouldn't do this to my own code,
>> though.
> Okay, that's acceptable.
> Why not have something like this :
>
> sccr1_reg = pxa2xx_spi_read(drv_data, SSCR1);
> if (!(sccr1_reg & SSCR1_TIE))
> mask &= ~SSSR_TFS;
>
> /* Ignore RX timeout interrupt if it is disabled */
> if (!(sccr1_reg & SSCR1_TINTE))
> mask &= ~SSSR_TINT;
>
> status = pxa2xx_spi_read(drv_data, SSR);
> while (status & mask) {
> ... handlers etc ...
> status = pxa2xx_spi_read(drv_data, SSR);
> };
>
> There is a duplication of the status read, but that looks acceptable, and the
> mask calculation is moved out of the loop (this should be checked more
> thoroughly as it looked to me only probe() would change these values, yet I
> might be wrong).
Unfortunately, mask can change if SSCR1_TIE is cleared. So this is not
correct.
What would be an alternative to looping is masking (would be required
for threaded irq anyway - but then we won't need to loop in the first
place): disable all irq sources, check the status bits once, re-enable
according to a potentially updated set, leave the handler and let the
hardware call us again.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA ITP SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-18 9:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-16 18:44 [PATCH v2 0/3] spi: pca2xx: Prepare for and enable MSI support Jan Kiszka
2017-01-16 18:44 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] spi: pxa2xx: Factor out handle_bad_msg Jan Kiszka
2017-01-17 11:18 ` Jarkko Nikula
2017-01-17 18:46 ` Applied "spi: pxa2xx: Factor out handle_bad_msg" to the spi tree Mark Brown
2017-01-16 18:44 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] spi: pxa2xx: Prepare for edge-triggered interrupts Jan Kiszka
2017-01-16 19:07 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-01-16 19:46 ` Jan Kiszka
2017-01-17 18:52 ` Jan Kiszka
2017-01-17 7:54 ` Robert Jarzmik
2017-01-17 8:05 ` Jan Kiszka
2017-01-18 8:21 ` Robert Jarzmik
2017-01-18 9:33 ` Jan Kiszka [this message]
2017-01-18 12:46 ` Mark Brown
2017-01-19 15:34 ` Jan Kiszka
2017-01-19 19:37 ` [PATCH v3 " Jan Kiszka
2017-01-19 19:57 ` Mark Brown
2017-01-19 20:04 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-01-20 12:21 ` Mark Brown
2017-01-20 15:29 ` Jan Kiszka
2017-01-20 16:14 ` Mark Brown
2017-01-20 7:42 ` Robert Jarzmik
2017-01-24 18:39 ` Applied "spi: pxa2xx: Prepare for edge-triggered interrupts" to the spi tree Mark Brown
2017-01-17 7:58 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] spi: pxa2xx: Prepare for edge-triggered interrupts Robert Jarzmik
2017-01-17 8:10 ` Jan Kiszka
2017-01-17 13:11 ` Jarkko Nikula
2017-01-17 14:43 ` Jan Kiszka
2017-01-16 18:44 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] spi: pca2xx-pci: Allow MSI Jan Kiszka
2017-01-16 19:08 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-01-17 11:18 ` Jarkko Nikula
2017-01-24 18:39 ` Applied "spi: pca2xx-pci: Allow MSI" to the spi tree Mark Brown
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=b3e0d393-b841-1556-ddd2-5634f12b6f2c@siemens.com \
--to=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@zonque.org \
--cc=haojian.zhuang@gmail.com \
--cc=jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-spi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=robert.jarzmik@free.fr \
--cc=sascha.weisenberger@siemens.com \
/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).