Re: UART/TTY console deadlock

From: S, Shirish
Date: Wed Jul 01 2020 - 02:43:35 EST



On 6/30/2020 11:32 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx> [200630 13:06]:
On (20/06/30 14:22), Petr Mladek wrote:
...

@@ -2284,8 +2289,6 @@ int serial8250_do_startup(struct uart_port *port)
* allow register changes to become visible.
*/
spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
- if (up->port.irqflags & IRQF_SHARED)
- disable_irq_nosync(port->irq);
wait_for_xmitr(up, UART_LSR_THRE);
serial_port_out_sync(port, UART_IER, UART_IER_THRI);
@@ -2297,9 +2300,9 @@ int serial8250_do_startup(struct uart_port *port)
iir = serial_port_in(port, UART_IIR);
serial_port_out(port, UART_IER, 0);
- if (port->irqflags & IRQF_SHARED)
- enable_irq(port->irq);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags);
+ if (irq_shared)
+ enable_irq(port->irq);
/*
* If the interrupt is not reasserted, or we otherwise
I think that it might be safe but I am not 100% sure, sigh.
Yeah, I'm not 100%, but I'd give it a try.
I do not feel brave enough to ack it today. But I am all for trying it
if anyone more familiar with the code is fine with it.
I see. Well, I suppose we need Ack-s from tty/serial/8250 maintainers.
I would not be very happy if _only_ printk people Ack the patch.

FWIW, the lockdep trace is not seen anymore with the patch applied.

Regards,

Shirish S

This conditional disable for irq_shared does not look nice to me
from the other device point of view :)

Would it be possible to just set up te dummy interrupt handler
for the startup, then change it back afterwards? See for example
omap8250_no_handle_irq().

The other device for irq_shared should be capable of dealing
with spurious interrupts if it's shared.

Regards,

Tony

--
Regards,
Shirish S