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: <20221118145512.509950-1-gsomlo@gmail.com> <20221118145512.509950-13-gsomlo@gmail.com>
 <abb7d87a-46c7-fe7f-f943-4287d15a537f@kernel.org> <Y3vIi2OF5t4IrCS1@errol.ini.cmu.edu>
 <8dd90e39-087e-984c-c289-dbfa766359a8@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <8dd90e39-087e-984c-c289-dbfa766359a8@kernel.org>
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2022 10:54:45 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdV3_YhF454J3ixRjOgWzJhL_Qr_XqxtSqxjF0qxGotFQw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 12/14] serial: liteuart: add IRQ support for the RX path
To:     Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>
Cc:     "Gabriel L. Somlo" <gsomlo@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, kgugala@antmicro.com,
        mholenko@antmicro.com, joel@jms.id.au,
        david.abdurachmanov@gmail.com, florent@enjoy-digital.fr,
        ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 8:44 AM Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org> wrote:
> On 21. 11. 22, 19:50, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
> >>>    static void liteuart_timer(struct timer_list *t)
> >>>    {
> >>>     struct liteuart_port *uart = from_timer(uart, t, timer);
> >>>     struct uart_port *port = &uart->port;
> >>> -   liteuart_rx_chars(port);
> >>> -
> >>> +   liteuart_interrupt(0, port);
> >>
> >> Are you sure spin_lock() is safe from this path? I assume so, but have you
> >> thought about it?
> >
> > I checked and at that point `in_serving_softirq()` is true.
> >
> > *However*, after studying spin_lock() and friends for a while, I'm
> > not quite clear on whether that unequivocally translates
> > to "yes, we're safe" :)
>
> Depends whether some hard irq context is grabbing the port lock too. If
> it does, it will spin forever waiting for this soft irq to finish (never
> happens as it was interrupted).
>
> > As such, I'm inclined to switch to `spin_lock_irqsave()` and
> > `spin_unlock_irqrestore()` even in the interrupt handler, which is
> > explicitly stated to be "safe from any context":
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.15/kernel-hacking/locking.html#cheat-sheet-for-locking
>
>
>
> > The alternative could be to set `TIMER_IRQSAFE` in `timer_setup()`,
> > but no other tty driver seems to be doing that, so I'd be a bit off
> > the beaten path there... :)
>
> Ah, no.
>
> > Please do let me know what you think about this, particularly if you
> > consider going the spin_lock_irqsave-everywhere-just-to-be-safe route
> > overkill... :)
>
> If you are unsure about the other contexts, irqsave/restore is the way
> to go. It can be lifted later, if someone investigates harder.

Inside the interrupt handler, plain spin_lock() should be OK.
Inside the timer handler, I think you need to use spin_lock_irqsave(),
as e.g. liteuart_set_termios() (and lots of code in serial_core.c)
already uses spin_lock_irqsave().
Besides, on non-SMP, spin_lock() doesn't do anything, so you need
to rely on disabling the local interrupt.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds