dmaengine: Can we schedule new transfer from dma callback routine??
viresh.kumar at st.com
Fri Apr 15 02:45:43 EDT 2011
On 04/11/2011 02:26 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 01:25:04PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
>> In dw_dmac.c driver, dwc_descriptor_complete() routine, following is
>> mentioned before calling callback:
>> * The API requires that no submissions are done from a
>> * callback, so we don't need to drop the lock here
>> if (callback)
>> Does this hold true for dmaengine??
> Not for slave devices - see Dan's reply:
> As the slave API hasn't been well documented, there's a lot of
> inconsistency of behaviour between DMA engine slave implementations.
> I'd suggest at least fixing slave DMA engine drivers to ensure that:
> (a) the callback is always called in tasklet context
> (b) the callback can submit new slave transactions (iow, the spinlock
> which prep_slave_sg takes must not be held during the callback.)
> The way that others solve this is to move the completed txd structures
> to a local 'completed' list, and then walk this list after the spinlocks
> have been dropped.
There is one more issue in the current DW_DMAC driver.
As most of interrupt processing is done in tasklet, spin_lock_bh() is used in almost
Now, if some driver is calling these routines from interrupt context or with interrupt
disabled, we get KERN_WARN() messages due to following in kernel/softirq.c:
static inline void _local_bh_enable_ip(unsigned long ip)
WARN_ON_ONCE(in_irq() || irqs_disabled());
Should i minimize processing in tasklets, so that spin_lock_bh is not required anymore,
as in drivers/dma/amba-pl08x.c (tasklet for every channel) or is there some other way of
Currently, drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c is calling from interrupt context or with
More information about the linux-arm-kernel