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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220914080016.67951-1-namcaov@gmail.com> <YyLmEpJBG7fPZ8iN@kroah.com>
In-Reply-To: <YyLmEpJBG7fPZ8iN@kroah.com>
From:   Nam Cao <namcaov@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:14:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+sZ8B8ogeKhNwvLtj3hSkTUg8AED45unEYP7GCGYuLq8Do8vg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: vt6655: replace spin_lock_irqsave with spin_lock
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     forest@alittletooquiet.net, philipp.g.hortmann@gmail.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 10:44 AM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:00:17AM +0200, Nam Cao wrote:
> > In vt6655 driver, there is a single interrupt handler: vnt_interrupt(),
> > and it does not take the spinlock. The interrupt handler only schedules
> > a workqueue, and the spinlock is taken in this workqueue. Thus, there is
> > no need to use spin_lock_irqsave, as the spinlock is never taken by an
> > interrupt. Replace spin_lock_irqsave (and spin_unlock_irqsave) with
> > spin_lock (and spin_unlock).
>
> What is the speed difference before and after this change?  And how are
> interrupts properly handled anymore in this driver if you took away the
> lock that was being accessed in the irq?

My understanding is that no lock is accessed in the irq in this driver. But
it seems like I am wrong. Sorry for sending a buggy patch, I may follow-up with
this later when I figure out what I did wrong.

Best regards,
Nam.