Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:43:29 +0200
From: Ido Yariv <ido@wizery.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] genirq: Flush the irq thread on synchronization
Message-ID: <20120213094329.GA29428@WorkStation>
References: <1322843052-7166-1-git-send-email-ido@wizery.com>
 <alpine.LFD.2.02.1112022345300.2735@ionos>
 <20111204190932.GO32400@WorkStation>
 <20111216104828.GB18877@WorkStation>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20111216104828.GB18877@WorkStation>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1922
Lines: 46

Hi Thomas,

On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 09:09:32PM +0200, Ido Yariv wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 12:21:46AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I can see your problem, but this might lead to threads_active leaks
> > under certain conditions. desc->threads_active was only meant to deal
> > with shared interrupts.
> > 
> > We explicitely allow a design where the primary handler can leave the
> > device interrupt enabled and allow further interrupts to occur while
> > the handler is running. We only have a single bit to note that the
> > thread should run, but your wakeup would up the threads_active count
> > in that scenario several times w/o a counterpart which decrements it.
> > 
> > The solution for this is to keep the current threads_active semantics
> > and make the wait function different. Instead of waiting for
> > threads_active to become 0 it should wait for threads_active == 0 and
> > the IRQTF_RUNTHREAD for all actions to be cleared. To avoid looping
> > over the actions, we can take a similar approach as we take with the
> > desc->threads_oneshot bitfield.
> 
> Thanks for reviewing this.
> 
> I might be missing something, but I don't see any potential
> threads_active leaks in this approach. We wont increase threads_active
> if IRQTF_RUNTHREAD was already set beforehand (as test_and_set_bit()
> will return 1).
> 
> If irq_wake_thread is called multiple times before irq_thread has had a
> chance to run, threads_active will only be increased once and decreased
> back when IRQTF_RUNTHREAD is cleared.
> 
> Am I missing something? If not, do you see any other issues with this
> implementation?

Any thoughts on this?

Thanks,
Ido.
--
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/