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;
Date:   Tue, 27 Jun 2023 09:43:28 +0800
From:   Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Cc:     YE Chengfeng <cyeaa@connect.ust.hk>,
        "linus.walleij@linaro.org" <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        "andy@kernel.org" <andy@kernel.org>,
        "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpiolib-cdev: Fix potential &lr->wait.lock
 deadlock issue
Message-ID: <ZJo+wBMsyHvu/7Mj@sol>
References: <TYCP286MB1188B6A0379F7928C63288DF8A21A@TYCP286MB1188.JPNP286.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <ZJk87rWsDj7pWJIP@sol>
 <CAMRc=McGOV+A8ROXRinUkWG0POTe37RWphRHDW6sy7UMU-e2UA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAMRc=McGOV+A8ROXRinUkWG0POTe37RWphRHDW6sy7UMU-e2UA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 05:50:47PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 9:23 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > spin_lock_bh() should be sufficient, given that edge_irq_thread() is run
> > in a softirq?  That is faster and would allow the hard irq handlers to
> > still run, and timestamp the event, but inhibit the edge_irq_thread()
> > from being called on that CPU until the lock is released.
> > (hmmm, gpio_desc_to_lineinfo() also uses spin_lock_irqsave() but it is
> > never called from hard irq context, so there is a good chance I'm missing
> > something here??)
> > More on spin_lock choice below.
> 
> Again: this is incorrect - edge_irq_thread() doesn't execute in
> softirq context which can be verified by calling in_softirq() from it.
> 

Ok, that matches what I had initially thought.  Wading through the kernel
doc got me thinking the secondary handler was run as a softirq.
But it is a threaded irq used here, so the thread handler runs in a
kernel thread, as does the debounce_work_func() and hte thread handler
process_hw_ts_thread().
That's a relief.

While we are on the subject of spin_locks, why does
gpio_desc_to_lineinfo() use spin_lock_irqsave()?
I assume the _irq is necessary as the desc could be updated at interrupt
level, but AFAICT gpio_desc_to_lineinfo() is only ever called from process
context, so why not just spin_lock_irq()?

Cheers,
Kent.