From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932541AbaICMZX (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2014 08:25:23 -0400 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:44035 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755456AbaICMZV (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2014 08:25:21 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 14:25:09 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Marc Zyngier cc: Jason Cooper , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "linux@arm.linux.org.uk" , "shawn.guo@freescale.com" , "kernel@pengutronix.de" , "tony@atomide.com" , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , "jonas@southpole.se" , "shc_work@mail.ru" , "baohua@kernel.org" , "maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com" , "khilman@linaro.org" , "sboyd@codeaurora.org" , Lorenzo Pieralisi , "larry.bassel@linaro.org" , Mark Rutland , Sudeep Holla , "stefan.kristiansson@saunalahti.fi" , "vkale@apm.com" , "schwidefsky@de.ibm.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/26] genirq: fix use of irq_find_mapping outside of legal RCU context In-Reply-To: <540707B3.4050305@arm.com> Message-ID: References: <1409047421-27649-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <87y4uap98n.fsf@approximate.cambridge.arm.com> <20140903120406.GK30467@titan.lakedaemon.net> <540707B3.4050305@arm.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Marc Zyngier wrote: > [Dropping linux@openrisc.net from the CC list] > > On 03/09/14 13:09, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Jason Cooper wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:33:44AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >>> Hi Thomas, > >>> > >>> On Tue, Aug 26 2014 at 10:34:51 pm BST, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >>>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2014, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> A number of irqchip drivers are directly calling irq_find_mapping, > >>>>> which may use a rcu_read_lock call when walking the radix tree. > >>>>> > >>>>> Turns out that if you hit that point with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU enabled, > >>>>> the kernel will shout at you, as using RCU in this context may be > >>>>> illegal (specially if coming from the idle state, where RCU would be > >>>>> in a quiescent state). > >>>>> > >>>>> A possible fix would be to wrap calls to irq_find_mapping into a > >>>>> RCU_NONIDLE macro, but that really looks ugly. > >>>>> > >>>>> This patch series introduce another generic IRQ entry point > >>>>> (handle_domain_irq), which has the exact same behaviour as handle_IRQ > >>>>> (as defined on arm, arm64 and openrisc), except that it also takes a > >>>>> irq_domain pointer. This allows the logical IRQ lookup to be done > >>>>> inside the irq_{enter,exit} section, which contains a > >>>>> rcu_irq_{enter,exit}, making it safe. > >>>> > >>>> Looks good. Should this be routed to the genirq tree? > >>> > >>> I'm happy for you to take this series, provided the architecture > >>> maintainers agree on it (I'm still to hear from the openrisc guys, and > >>> their mailing-list seems to positively hate my guts). > >> > >> I think everyone's had a chance to look over it by now. Thomas, shall I > >> take the series? > > > > Yes please. > > Do you want a pull request? Or are you picking up the patches from the ML? Did you pick up the Acked/Reviewed/Ignored-by tags?