Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756557AbZCBR4g (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:56:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754397AbZCBR40 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:56:26 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:40714 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754140AbZCBR4Z (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:56:25 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:55:53 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , lkml , linux-arch Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq: remove IRQF_DISABLED Message-Id: <20090302095553.8204d808.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1235996477.5330.174.camel@laptop> References: <1235996477.5330.174.camel@laptop> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1591 Lines: 35 On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 13:21:17 +0100 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > People are playing odd games with IRQF_DISABLED, remove it. > > Its not reliable, since shared interrupt lines could disable it for you, > and its possible and allowed for archs to disable IRQs to limit IRQ nesting. > > Therefore, simply mandate that _ALL_ IRQ handlers are run with IRQs disabled. > > [ This _should_ not break anything, since we've mandated that IRQ handlers > _must_ be able to deal with this for a _long_ time ] > > IRQ handlers should be fast, no if buts and any other exceptions. We also have > plenty instrumentation to find any offending IRQ latency sources. Changelog is a bit cruddy. What are these "odd games" and why are they so serious as to warrant a fairly drastic-looking patch? Where are these odd games being played, and what are the implications to those codesites of having their ball taken away? etc. wrt the patch itself - it would make life easier if we were to leave the IRQF_DISABLED definition in place for a while. I'm counting 47 new additions of references to IRQF_DISABLED in linux-next/-mm. It would grease the wheels a bit were these things (and out-of-tree drivers) to not instabreak. One could add a nice runtime warning at request_irq() time, leave that in place until everything is fixed up. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/