On 26/06/14 10:54, Daniel Thompson wrote: >> Also bear in mind that svc_entry calls trace_hardirqs_off - is this >> appropriate and safe for the FIQ to call? > > I personally think it appropriate and it looked safe on the lockdep side > of things. However I will look a bit deeper at this since I don't > remember how far I chased things back. I've reviewed as far as I can. Regarding safety I can't find anything much to upset the FIQ handler. I think it might occasionally trigger the trace code's recursion avoidance causing the trace event to be dropped but that's about it. I admit I came very close to removing the trace_hardirqs calls from the FIQ code but in the end I've left it. The hardirqs *are* off during FIQ execution. >>> + msr cpsr_c, #FIQ_MODE | PSR_I_BIT | PSR_F_BIT >> >> Here we switch to FIQ mode. What about the PSR_A_BIT which prevents >> imprecise aborts on ARMv6+ ? >> >> Nevertheless, I think it's safe because the A bit will be set by the >> CPU when taking the FIQ exception, and it should remain set since >> cpsr_c won't modify it. > > Agreed. > > Note that while double checking this I realized that this code will drop > the value of PSR_ISETSTATE (T bit) that the vector_stub macro set for > us. I'll fix this. I was wrong about this. CPSR T bit is part of execution state can cannot be modified by msr. > I've picked out the following actions from the above: > > 1. Wrap a save and restore lr_abt and spsr_abt around the FIQ handler Done. > 2. Add a paired up trace_hardirqs_on() (and review more deeply). Done. > 3. Add comments explaining hazards w.r.t. data abort, Done. > 4. Correctly manage T bit during transition back to FIQ mode. Not applicable. > Do I miss anything? I hope not! Daniel. -- 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/