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;
Message-ID: <b53dbf64-b824-89b0-dc00-b894cf9771a9@bytedance.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Jul 2022 11:13:34 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.0
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64: support HAVE_IRQ_EXIT_ON_IRQ_STACK
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20220707110511.52129-1-zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
 <20220707110511.52129-3-zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
 <CAK8P3a1-rL391dp33D5r+SgQ+L0u7Neta_-DZoZL=+c1zPtNQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <42bfd82c-b3fb-c942-d6f2-ae5adec90a26@bytedance.com>
 <CAK8P3a17A1t=qkyToQNVnuVfGPp-7VpFx5qJ-gmpyrkJ3yRXTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <33a63e76-fb71-2b9e-3b3c-cc6f7a675cf3@bytedance.com>
 <CAK8P3a1GgnmhHj+_gRYZ52=TvfBQb_xxYt1Hg-jMJ2gZqCD42w@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a1GgnmhHj+_gRYZ52=TvfBQb_xxYt1Hg-jMJ2gZqCD42w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2022/7/8 04:55, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 5:00 PM Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> wrote:
>> On 2022/7/7 22:41, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 3:38 PM Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022/7/7 20:49, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>
>>> -asmlinkage void noinstr el1h_64_fiq_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>> +asmlinkage void noinstr el1h_64_irq_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>> +{
>>> +       if (on_thread_stack())
>>> +               call_on_irq_stack(regs, el1_irq);
>>
>> IMO, this can't work. Because el1_interrupt() will invoke
>> arm64_preempt_schedule_irq(), which will cause scheduling on the
>> IRQ stack.
> 
> Ah, too bad. I spent some more time looking for a simpler approach,
> but couldn't find one I'm happy with. One idea might be to have
> callback functions for each combinations of irq/fiq with irq/pnmi
> to avoid the nested callback pointers. Not sure if that helps.

Maybe nested callback pointers are not always a wild beast. ;)
This method does not change much, and we can also conveniently stuff
all kinds of things in do_handler() that we want to run on the IRQ
stack in addition to the handler().

Thanks,
Qi

> 
>         Arnd

-- 
Thanks,
Qi