Re: [PATCH] uio: uio_pdrv_genirq V2

[Alan Cox]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:30:36 +0200
Uwe Kleine-KÃnig <Uwe.Kleine-Koenig@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Alan Cox wrote:
> > 
> > > > +       else if (!irq_on && !priv->irq_disabled)
> > > > +               disable_irq(dev_info->irq);
> > > I'm not sure if this is a problem on SMP.  Should you use
> > > disable_irq_nosync here, too?  Probably it's OK.
> > 
> > That one will also deadlock.
> Can you explain why?  I think irqcontrol is only called in task context.
> I only see one possible deadlock and that's disable_irq being called
> while the irq is IRQ_INPROGRESS on the same cpu.  I'm always willing to
> learn.

	CPU0	 (UIO IRQ)		CPU1 (irqcontrol)
	take IRQ
					take spin lock
	spin on spinlock
					disable_irq (blocks)

> I think I didn't understand you right here, with the lock this can
> happen, too, doesn't it?

Actually yes - so it would simplify it without changing behaviour.

Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/