Messages in this thread | | | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] genirq: avoid long loops in handle_edge_irq | Date | Thu, 28 Sep 2023 11:28:10 +0200 |
| |
On Thu, Sep 28 2023 at 10:22, Wei Gong wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 05:25:24PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 27 2023 at 15:53, Wei Gong wrote: >> > O Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 02:28:21PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 25 2023 at 10:51, Wei Gong wrote: >> >> > diff --git a/kernel/irq/chip.c b/kernel/irq/chip.c >> >> > index dc94e0bf2c94..6da455e1a692 100644 >> >> > --- a/kernel/irq/chip.c >> >> > +++ b/kernel/irq/chip.c >> >> > @@ -831,7 +831,8 @@ void handle_edge_irq(struct irq_desc *desc) >> >> > handle_irq_event(desc); >> >> > >> >> > } while ((desc->istate & IRQS_PENDING) && >> >> > - !irqd_irq_disabled(&desc->irq_data)); >> >> > + !irqd_irq_disabled(&desc->irq_data) && >> >> > + cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), irq_data_get_affinity_mask(&desc->irq_data))); >> >> >> >> Assume affinty mask has CPU0 and CPU1 set and the loop is on CPU0, but >> >> the effective affinity is on CPU1 then how is this going to move the >> >> interrupt? >> > >> > Loop is on the CPU0 means that the previous effective affinity was on CPU0. >> > When the previous effective affinity is a subset of the new affinity mask, >> > the effective affinity will not be updated. >> >> That's an implementation detail of a particular interrupt chip driver, >> but not a general guaranteed behaviour. >> > > Can replacing irq_data_get_affinity_mask with irq_data_get_effective_affinity_mask > solve this issue?
Yes.
| |