Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1612774577-55943-1-git-send-email-luojiaxing@huawei.com>
 <2b8001bb-0bcd-3fea-e15c-2722e7243209@huawei.com> <CAHp75VcpeYpsW6B85F0u=B+GToNh=1fYdRSMeQqE0vOtOdSi8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1a5dfcf2-11a2-f549-782d-447d58e21305@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <1a5dfcf2-11a2-f549-782d-447d58e21305@huawei.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Feb 2021 11:42:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vd5UV3E79sdq8uQ4pgjFORdJknpm-g7No3tomnKhinMnw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Linuxarm] [PATCH for next v1 0/2] gpio: few clean up patches to
 replace spin_lock_irqsave with spin_lock
To:     luojiaxing <luojiaxing@huawei.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@kernel.org>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linuxarm@openeuler.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 11:24 AM luojiaxing <luojiaxing@huawei.com> wrote:
> On 2021/2/8 21:28, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 11:11 AM luojiaxing <luojiaxing@huawei.com> wrote:
> >> Sorry, my operation error causes a patch missing from this patch set. I
> >> re-send the patch set. Please check the new one.
> > What is the new one?! You have to give proper versioning and change
> > log for your series.
>
> sure, I will send a new one later, but let me answer your question first.
>
> >> On 2021/2/8 16:56, Luo Jiaxing wrote:
> >>> There is no need to use API with _irqsave in hard IRQ handler, So replace
> >>> those with spin_lock.
> > How do you know that another CPU in the system can't serve the

The keyword here is: *another*.

> > following interrupt from the hardware at the same time?
>
> Yes, I have some question before.
>
> There are some similar discussion here,  please take a look, Song baohua
> explained it more professionally.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e949a474a9284ac6951813bfc8b34945@hisilicon.com/
>
> Here are some excerpts from the discussion:
>
> I think the code disabling irq in hardIRQ is simply wrong.

Why?

> Since this commit
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=e58aa3d2d0cc
> genirq: Run irq handlers with interrupts disabled
>
> interrupt handlers are definitely running in a irq-disabled context
> unless irq handlers enable them explicitly in the handler to permit
> other interrupts.

This doesn't explain any changes in the behaviour on SMP.
IRQ line can be disabled on a few stages:
 a) on the source (IP that generates an event)
 b) on IRQ router / controller
 c) on CPU side

The commit above is discussing (rightfully!) the problem when all
interrupts are being served by a *single* core. Nobody prevents them
from being served by *different* cores simultaneously. Also, see [1].

[1]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/htmldocs/kernel-locking/cheatsheet.html

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko