Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> we'll get rid of that pt_regs thing centrally, from all drivers at once
> - there's upstream buy-in for that already, and Thomas already generated
> a test-patch for that a few months ago. But it's not a big issue right
> now.
Yay! Can you give me a pointer to the patch?
> this shouldnt be a big issue either - we use indirect jumps all around
> the kernel.
Yes, I know. I'm sometimes concerned at just how fast indirect jumps (and even
direct calls) are proliferating. Look at the read syscall path for something
like ext3 these days: it's like a pile of spaghetti. That seems particularly
true of direct-IO where it seems to weave in and out of core code and the
filesystem as it goes down. I'm also concerned about stack usage.
> CPUs are either smart enough to predict it
I was told a while back (2002?) not to use indirect pointers for some stuff
because CPUs _couldn't_ predict it. Maybe this has changed in modern CPUs.
> > (3) ACK'ing and controlling interrupts has to be done by groups.
>
> please be more specific,
Under some circumstances I can work out which sources have triggered which
interrupts (there are various off-CPU FPGAs which implement auxiliary PICs that
do announce their sources), but the aux-PIC channels are grouped together upon
delivery to the CPU PIC, so some of the ACK'ing has to be done at the group
level.
> how is this not possible via genirq?
How is it possible with genirq?
Unless I tie all the grouped sources together into one virtual IRQ line, this
doesn't appear to be possible. But doing that I might then also have a mixed
set of "flow" types in any particular IRQ.
> > (4) No account is taken of interrupt priority.
>
> hm, i'm not sure what you mean - could you be more specific?
The FRV CPU, like many others, supports interrupt prioritisation. A particular
interrupt level is set in the PSR, and any interrupt of a higher priority can
interrupt. do_IRQ() can then do the interrupt processing in the interrupt
level of the interrupt that invoked it, thus permitting higher priority
interrupts to still happen.
> but ... somehow the current FRV code does figure out which IRQ source
> fired, right?
Not always; sometimes it has to fall back to polling the drivers unfortunately.
Btw why are we using IRQ_INPROGRESS, IRQ_DISABLED, IRQ_PENDING and friends?
They would appear unnecessary.
David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
