lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Fwd: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-mm1-V0.4]

* Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> wrote:

> This was my conclusion as well. I have a patch sitting around to add
> this to the emu10k1 ALSA driver, it's quite useful. It would be nice
> if there were a facility in the kernel to easily identify missed
> interrupts like this or (even better) unbalanced irq disable/enable -
> AFAICT userspace alone cannot reliably distinguish lost interrupts
> from scheduling problems (though you can get a lot of hints). Paul
> mentioned trying to debug the unbalanced irq disable in his talk at
> ZKM 2003, and said it's hard because the hardware will enable/disable
> interrupts on its own and he could not identify all those places.
> Ingo, is there an easy way to trace this like we do for unbalanced
> preempt count?

i wrote a cli/sti latency tracer a couple of years ago so it's possible.
Note that an irqs-off condition is near impossible to 'leak' into
userspace code though, since the x86 iret path restores flags to the
previous value. Worst-case the irqs-off condition may leak into
kernelspace, and that can still cause bad effects. X startup/shutdown
can disable interrupts for a long time, was that excluded from your
testing?

Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.756 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site