Messages in this thread | | | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86_64 irq: Handle irqs pending in IRR during irq migration. | Date | Thu, 08 Feb 2007 04:48:50 -0700 |
| |
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:
> * Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote: > >> Ingo would it be reasonable to get a wait queue so I can wait for an >> irq that needs the delayed disable action to actually become masked? > > that might make sense, but what will do the wakeup - incidental IRQ > arriving on the new CPU? Isnt that a bit risky - maybe the device wont > generate IRQs for a really long time.
I still need to test this, but I believe I have found a simpler way to avoid irr problems during migration, and I believe the code works equally well with either edge or level triggered interrupts.
The idea is this: Instead of trying test for and handle when irr occurs, simply enable local interrupts after disabling and acknowledging the irq so that anything pending will be processed, before we perform the migration operation.
I don't think the edge case cares about the mask/ack order but but masking before acking appears important for the level triggered case, so we might as well use that order for both.
Does this look like a sane way to handle this?
static void ack_apic(unsigned int irq) { struct irq_desc *desc = irq_desc + irq; int do_unmask_irq = 0; if (unlikely((irq_desc[irq].status & IRQ_MOVE_PENDING) && !in_irq()) { do_unmask_irq = 1; desc->chip->mask(irq); } ack_APIC_irq(); if (unlikely(do_unmask_irq)) { /* Don't let pending irqs accumulate */ local_irq_enable(); syncrhonize_irq(irq); move_masked_irq(irq); local_irq_disable(); desc->chip->unmask(irq); } }
Eric - 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/
| |