Re: [PATCH] 2.6.18-rt7: PowerPC: fix breakage in threaded fasteoi type IRQ handlers

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



Ingo Molnar wrote:

i.e. Sergei's patch tweaking the irqchip data structures is wrong - the correct approach is what i do for i386/x86_64: install a different "threaded" flow handler.
 Let me remind you that the patch was following *your* change in
handle_fasteoi_irq(). Do not present it as my own invention.
I prefer this to tweaking the existing 'fasteoi' handler, to make the act of supporting a threaded flow design
   You do, indeed? :-)

explicit. (and to allow a mixed threaded/non-threaded flow setup) I didnt take Daniel's prior patch for that reason: he tried to tweak the fasteoi flow handler - which is an almost good approach but not good enough :-)
   Yeah, your way was *really* better. :-/

on PPC64, 'get the vector' initiates an ACK as well - is that done before handle_irq() is done?
   Exactly. How else do_IRQ() would know the vector?

So by doing a mask followed by an eoi, you essentially mask the interrupt preventing further delivery of that interrupt and lower the CPU priority in the PIC thus allowing processing of further interrupts.
correct, that's what should happen.
   eoi() would be a more proper name than ack() then.

Are there other fasteoi controllers than the ones I have on powerpc anyway ?
well, if you mean the x86 APICs, there you get the vector 'for free' as part of the IRQ entry call sequence, and there's an EOI register in the local APIC that notifies the IRQ hardware, lowers the CPU priority, etc. We have that as an ->eoi handler right now.
 Yes. And my perception from that fragment of RT patch was that fasteoi was
targeted only at SMP interrupt controllers which like IOAPIC are sensible
enough to not trouble the other CPUs with an interrupt that's already been
taken by a certain CPU for handling, i.e. that interrupt being effectively
masked off until EOI arrives (well, that's so for the level triggered but not
the edge-triggered IRQs, if I don't mistake), so there's no need for explicit
masking and at the same time that interrupt isn't hindering the delivery of
the lower-priority interrupts to any CPU (unlike that would be happening with
 Now it turns out that my understading was wrong, and fasteoi could even
fit for 8259 (according to Ben)?
WBR, Sergei
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[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]
  Powered by Linux