Messages in this thread | | | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] genirq: Fix irqs_unhandled in note_interrupt | Date | Mon, 19 Feb 2024 16:03:46 +0100 |
| |
On Tue, Nov 28 2023 at 10:10, Angus Chen wrote: > Commit 4f27c00bf80f ("Improve behaviour of spurious IRQ detect") > introduced a age of last_unhandled,after irq_count reached 100000, > we set irqs_unhandled = 0,but we didn't clear last_unhandled.
We do nothing. Please write changelogs in passive voice.
> So we can see the print of irq_spurious_proc_show is not consistent. > Like below: > root@jmkernel:~# cat /proc/irq/138/spurious > count 99998 > unhandled 1 > last_unhandled 1543930240 ms > > root@jmkernel:~# cat /proc/irq/138/spurious > count 0 > unhandled 0 > last_unhandled 1548915240 ms
I can't figure out what you are trying to demonstrate here.
> we can set last_unhandled=1 as a prompting message.
This makes no sense either.
> Signed-off-by: Angus Chen <angus.chen@jaguarmicro.com> > --- > kernel/irq/spurious.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/irq/spurious.c b/kernel/irq/spurious.c > index 02b2daf07441..e883df04bdf1 100644 > --- a/kernel/irq/spurious.c > +++ b/kernel/irq/spurious.c > @@ -428,7 +428,7 @@ void note_interrupt(struct irq_desc *desc, irqreturn_t action_ret) > mod_timer(&poll_spurious_irq_timer, > jiffies + POLL_SPURIOUS_IRQ_INTERVAL); > } > - desc->irqs_unhandled = 0; > + desc->irqs_unhandled = 1;
Why? Just to do some incomprehensible /proc/ output cosmetics instead of fixing the related procfs function?
Thanks,
tglx
| |