Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Thomas Pfaff <tpfaff@pcs.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] irq/core: synchronize irq_thread startup
In-Reply-To: <87pmklpqod.ffs@tglx>
References: <552fe7b4-9224-b183-bb87-a8f36d335690@pcs.com>
 <87mtg0m2jb.ffs@tglx> <e64aa9cb-a1ae-7534-8bf1-446d9d8c512@pcs.com>
 <87pmklpqod.ffs@tglx>
Date:   Tue, 10 May 2022 13:37:51 +0200
Message-ID: <87mtfppqi8.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 10 2022 at 13:34, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, May 10 2022 at 10:43, Thomas Pfaff wrote:
>> It can be done only before the interrupt thread is stopped, and free_irq() 
>> itself is already taking care about synchronizing, no matter if its done by 
>> __synchronize_hardirq() or by synchronize_irq(), like it was before commit 
>> 519cc8652b3a.
>
> No, it does not really take care about it. It can return with
> irq_desc::threads_active > 0 due to the interrupt thread being stopped
> before reaching the thread function. Think about shared interrupts.

Duh. Hit send too fast.

It does matter whether the synchronization is done via
__synchronize_hardirq() or via synchronize_irq(). The latter ensured
that the thread reached the thread function and handled the pending
wakeup _before_ kthread_stop() become true.

So the fix is required to undo the damage created by 519cc8652b3a.

The synchronize_irq() after free_irq() is a completely different
problem.

Thanks,

        tglx