Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760298AbZDXQtG (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:49:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756260AbZDXQsy (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:48:54 -0400 Received: from mba.ocn.ne.jp ([122.1.235.107]:52339 "EHLO smtp.mba.ocn.ne.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752515AbZDXQsx convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:48:53 -0400 Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:48:50 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20090425.014850.93020801.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> To: alessandro.zummo@towertech.it Cc: rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, david-b@pacbell.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hcegtvedt@atmel.com, vapier@gentoo.org, rongkai.zhan@windriver.com, balajirrao@openmoko.org, broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH] rtc: Make rtc_update_irq callable with irqs enabled From: Atsushi Nemoto In-Reply-To: <20090424131334.10959f78@i1501.lan.towertech.it> References: <20090424120100.76797d20@i1501.lan.towertech.it> <200904240410.52543.david-b@pacbell.net> <20090424131334.10959f78@i1501.lan.towertech.it> X-Fingerprint: 6ACA 1623 39BD 9A94 9B1A B746 CA77 FE94 2874 D52F X-Pgp-Public-Key: http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2874D52F X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 21.4 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1170 Lines: 29 On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:13:34 +0200, Alessandro Zummo wrote: > > > ?use spin_lock() in the IRQ handler and spin_lock_irq/irq_save > > > ?in the setup functions. > > > > I think you're describing how the *current* scheme is supposed > > to work ... except that some IRQ handlers aren't calling the > > rtc_update_irq() routine with IRQs blocked. > > > > Yes, that current scheme works ... modulo those buggy handlers. > > ok, but why it's necessary to disable the interrupts? Only because > the specs says so or because there's a locking issue I'm missing? Here is a possible example: 1. RTC alarm interrupt handler takes rtc->irq_lock by spin_lock() 2. A timer interrupt handler calls rtc_uie_timer() for UIE emulation 3. rtc_uie_timer() waits on rtc->irq_lock .... deadlock! This sort of deadlock can happen if a spin lock was used by multple interrupt handlers. --- Atsushi Nemoto -- 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/