powerpc: Fixup hard_irq_disable semantics
Subsystems (2)
PATCH 1/3 powerpc: Fixup hard_irq_disable semantics
This patch renames the raw hard_irq_{enable,disable} into __hard_irq_{enable,disable} and introduces a higher level hard_irq_disable() function that can be used by any code to enforce that IRQs are fully disabled, not only lazy disabled.
The difference with the __ versions is that it will update some per-processor fields so that the kernel keeps track and properly re-enables them in the next local_irq_disable();
This prepares powerpc for my next patch that introduces hard_irq_disable() generically.
arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c | 2 +- arch/powerpc/kernel/swsusp.c | 4 ---- arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/pervasive.c | 6 ++---- include/asm-powerpc/hw_irq.h | 11 +++++++++-- 4 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c +1 -1
@@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ void local_irq_restore(unsigned long en) lv1_get_version_info(&tmp); } -hard_irq_enable (); +__hard_irq_enable (); }#endif /* CONFIG_PPC64 */
arch/powerpc/kernel/swsusp.c +0 -4
@@ -36,8 +36,4 @@ void restore_processor_state(void)#ifdef CONFIG_PPC32 set_context (current->active_mm->context.id, current->active_mm->pgd);#endif - -#ifdef CONFIG_PPC64 -hard_irq_enable (); -#endif }
arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/pervasive.c +2 -4
@@ -43,12 +43,10 @@ static void cbe_power_save(void)unsigned long ctrl, thread_switch_control;/* -* We need to hard disable interrupts, but we also need to mark them -* hard disabled in the PACA so that the local_irq_enable() done by -* our caller upon return propertly hard enables. +* We need to hard disable interrupts, the local_irq_enable() done by +* our caller upon return will hard re-enable. */ hard_irq_disable (); -get_paca ()->hard_enabled =0 ; ctrl =mfspr (SPRN_CTRLF );
include/asm-powerpc/hw_irq.h +9 -2
@@ -48,8 +48,15 @@ extern void iseries_handle_interrupts(vo#define irqs_disabled () (local_get_flags() == 0) -#define hard_irq_enable () __mtmsrd(mfmsr() | MSR_EE, 1) -#define hard_irq_disable () __mtmsrd(mfmsr() & ~MSR_EE, 1) +#define __hard_irq_enable () __mtmsrd(mfmsr() | MSR_EE, 1) +#define __hard_irq_disable () __mtmsrd(mfmsr() & ~MSR_EE, 1) + +#define hard_irq_disable () \ + do { \ + __hard_irq_disable(); \ + get_paca()->soft_enabled = 0; \ + get_paca()->hard_enabled = 0; \ + } while(0)#else
Quoted 5 lines · Benjamin Herrenschmidt
This patch renames the raw hard_irq_{enable,disable} into __hard_irq_{enable,disable} and introduces a higher level
hard_irq_disable()function that can be used by any code to enforce that IRQs are fully disabled, not only lazy disabled.
Why did you rename hard_irq_enable() too?
Isn't it more logical to have high-level hard_irq_disable() and hard_irq_enable(), and a special low-level __hard_irq_disable()?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- Sony Network and Software Technology Center Europe (NSCE) [email protected] ------- The Corporate Village, Da Vincilaan 7-D1 Voice +32-2-7008453 Fax +32-2-7008622 ---------------- B-1935 Zaventem, Belgium
Quoted 11 lines · Geert Uytterhoeven
Quoted 5 lines · Benjamin Herrenschmidt
This patch renames the raw hard_irq_{enable,disable} into __hard_irq_{enable,disable} and introduces a higher level
hard_irq_disable()function that can be used by any code to enforce that IRQs are fully disabled, not only lazy disabled.Why did you rename
hard_irq_enable()too?Isn't it more logical to have high-level
hard_irq_disable()andhard_irq_enable(), and a special low-level__hard_irq_disable()?
Not really. If you see my subsequent patch, the idea is to introduce a single generic hard_irq_disable() which is meant to be called with irqs already disabled (that is within a local_irq_disable section) to enforce that if the arch does lazy disabling, it gets hard disabled at this point.
If we start adding hard_irq_enable() we end up in a can of worms:
- Do we want all the full set of save/restore etc... ?
- What if somebody does hard_enable while we are soft-disabled -and- have been hard disabled because of a pending interrupt ?
- What's the point ? :-)
So overall, I want to keep the semantics as simple as they can be. Maybe I can even add some WARN_ON() to make sure we are in a local_irq_disable'd section even in the generic one instead of just a NOP to enfore that.
Cheers,
Ben.