Hi Subbu,
From: "ext C.A, Subramaniam" <subramaniam...@ti.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 10/10] omap mailbox: OMAP4 Mailbox-driver Patch to support
tasklet implementation
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:35:23 +0200
[...]
> > > -
> > > - spin_lock(q->queue_lock);
> > > - __blk_end_request_all(rq, 0);
> > > - spin_unlock(q->queue_lock);
> > > + /* FIXME: We get a WARN_ON() if __blk_end_request_all()
> > > + * is used. Not sure if we can remove the queue locks
> > > + * for blk_requeue_request() and blk_fetch_request()
> > > + * calls as well.*/
> > > + blk_end_request_all(rq, 0);
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > While testing I got a WARN_ON() using the __blk_end_request_all().
> > > Tried using the blk_end_request_all() instead, and that
> > worked fine.
> > > Is it safe to remove the spin lock protection for all the
> > calls inside
> > > the tasklet function as you had suggested?
> > > Please comment.
> >
> > I think that it's safe since it's being executed in tasklet
> > context, no preemption.
> >
> > Which WARN_ON() did you get?
> >
>
> WARNING: at include/linux/blkdev.h:522
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!queue_is_locked(q));
> The __blk_end_request_all() needs the queue to be locked before making the
> call.
> However, the blk_end_request_all() call does not have this requirement.
Although it's safe without locking, __blk_end_request_all() wasn't
supposed to be used in tasklet context.
Let's use "blk_end_request_all()" until we'll come up with a better
idea while I think that request queue may be a little bit too heavy
for this porpose.
[...]
> > > static void __mbox_rx_interrupt(struct omap_mbox *mbox) @@ -217,7
> > > +192,7 @@ static void __mbox_rx_interrupt(struct omap_mbox *mbox)
> > > /* no more messages in the fifo. clear IRQ source. */
> > > ack_mbox_irq(mbox, IRQ_RX);
> > > nomem:
> > > - schedule_work(&mbox->rxq->work);
> > > + schedule_work(&mbox->rxq->rx_work);
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > > - mq = mbox_queue_alloc(mbox, mbox_txq_fn, mbox_tx_work);
> > > > + tasklet_init(&mbox->tx_tasklet, mbox_tx_tasklet,
> > > > (unsigned long)mbox);
> > > > +
> > > > + mq = mbox_queue_alloc(mbox, mbox_txq_fn, NULL);
> > > > if (!mq) {
> > > > ret = -ENOMEM;
> > > > goto fail_alloc_txq;
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Changed the signature of the mbox_queue_alloc function.
> > > The work queue / tasklet initialization is done in the
> > > omap_mbox_startup() function.
> >
> > why?
>
> The mbox_queue_alloc() currently, takes only the work queue function
> as an argument. With the tasklet introduced, I felt it is better to
> have work queue/ tasklet initializations,done outside the
> mbox_queue_alloc() function.
>
> Doing the tasklet initializtion in startup looks more like a work-around.
> Another option would be to pass both the work_queue and tasklet functions
> as arguments to the mbox_queue_alloc() function.
I second passing tasklet func as argument for mbox_queue_alloc because
mbox_queue_alloc() was originally introduced to avoid repeating the
same initialization steps for rx and tx. For me, doing all
initialization per mbox queue in this function seems to be the way.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
