Re: [PATCH 1/2] firewire: core: no need to track irq flags in bm_work

From: Stefan Richter
Date: Tue Jun 22 2010 - 07:43:47 EST


Philippe De Muyter wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:23:52PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
>> This is a workqueue job and always entered with IRQs enabled.
>
> did you mean 'disabled' ?

I meant enabled.

[...]
>> @@ -247,10 +246,10 @@ static void fw_card_bm_work(struct work_
>> bool root_device_is_cmc;
>> bool irm_is_1394_1995_only;
>>
>> - spin_lock_irqsave(&card->lock, flags);
>> + spin_lock_irq(&card->lock);

- spin_lock + spin_unlock don't influence whether IRQs on the current
CPU are on or off.

- spin_lock_irq + spin_unlock_irq always switch IRQs on the current
CPU off and back on. This is necessary if the lock could also be
taken by an IRQ handler. (Well, card->lock is actually only taken
by process contexts and by tasklets. Seems we could switch to
spin_lock_bh + spin_unlock_bh for card->lock everywhere in the
firewire stack.)

- spin_lock_irqsave + spin_unlock_irqrestore switch IRQs on the
current CPU off and back on only if used while IRQs are enabled;
if used while local IRQs are already disabled they leave them
disabled.

http://lwn.net/images/pdf/LDD3/ch05.pdf#page=14

Therefore some people prefer to use the safer spin_lock_irqsave()/
spin_unlock_irqrestore() everywhere. However, their downsides are the
need to track IRQ state flags, and --- subjectively --- that their
appearance in the code could create an impression to a casual reader
that this code was meant to be able to run in IRQs-on context as well as
in IRQs-off context. fw_card_bm_work() however definitely requires to
be called with IRQs on, notably to be able to wait for IEEE 1394
transactions to complete.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-==-=- -==- =-==-
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/