From: Harco Kuppens <h.kuppens@domain.hid>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@domain.hid>
Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org
Subject: Re: [Xenomai-help] keyboard interrupt
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:06:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48D3B1F3.1020408@domain.hid> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48D34C63.90304@domain.hid>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6037 bytes --]
everything is getting clearer know thanks :)
but still a got some things not really clear to may,
hope you still have time to answer them.
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Yes. For correct handling of shared IRQs, _all_ associate IRQ handlers
> must have been executed before the EOI can be sent. The reason is this:
>
> For level-triggered IRQs, all hardware devices that may have raised the
> IRQ line must be checked and told to lower it again before sending EOI.
> Otherwise the IRQ will immediately be triggered again and you end up in
> an endless loop, bricking your box.
>
ok, a raised line does not the information how many devices could have
raised them, so you have to handle them all to prevent missing one.
only after handling them all (they all are lowered) you can send
'end-of-IRQ' signal
thus when after handling one device all other devices have to be
rechecked because in the meantime they could have raised the line
> For edge-triggered IRQs, there problem is different. Here the shared IRQ
> handling algorithm is to consult all handler in a loop until they all
> reported "not for me" in a row. If you fail to do this, you risk loosing
> IRQs.
> Consider IRQ source A and B. Now an IRQ is raised by B. First, the
> handler for A will be called. It return "not for me". Now it happens
> that A also raised the IRQ right at this time. If you now simply log the
> IRQ for later handling by B and send the EOI, you take away the chance
> for handle A to react on the IRQ. At best you create latency, at worst A
> will never send an IRQ again...
>
so you should after handling B again have to call all handlers to see if
they report all "not for me" ?
so you would call handler A twice, right?
Thus when finally when handled all device you send the 'end-of-IRQ' signal.
After reading the explanation above I suppose that when handling an IRQ
X, there are no new entries for that IRQ X stored in the PIC controller.
So the next interrupt after the 'end-of-IRQ' signal will be another
interrupt than the one we just dealed.
at section 8.8.4 off the Intel APIC documentation /IA-32 Intel
Architecture Software Developer's Manual, Volume 3A: System Programming
Guide, Part 1
<http://developer.intel.com/design/processor/manuals/253668.pdf>/ I read
a very clear piece of explaining text :
The local APIC queues the fixed interrupts that it accepts in one of
two interrupt pending registers: the interrupt request register
(IRR) or in-service register (ISR). These two 256-bit read-only
registers are shown in Figure 8-20. The 256 bits in these registers
represent the 256 possible vectors; vectors 0 through 15 are
reserved by the APIC (see also: Section 8.5.2, "Valid Interrupt
Vectors").
The IRR contains the active interrupt requests that have been
accepted, but not yet dispatched to the processor for servicing.
When the local APIC accepts an interrupt, it sets the bit in the IRR
that corresponds the vector of the accepted interrupt. When the
processor core is ready to handle the next interrupt, the local APIC
clears the highest priority IRR bit that is set and sets the
corresponding ISR bit. The vector for the highest priority bit set
in the ISR is then dispatched to the processor core for servicing.
While the processor is servicing the highest priority interrupt, the
local APIC can send additional fixed interrupts by setting bits in
the IRR. When the interrupt service routine issues a write to the
EOI register (see Section 8.8.5, "Signaling Interrupt Servicing
Completion"), the local APIC responds by clearing the highest
priority ISR bit that is set. It then repeats the process of
clearing the highest priority bit in the IRR and setting the
corresponding bit in the ISR. The processor core then begins
executing the service routing for the highest priority bit set in
the ISR.
If more than one interrupt is generated with the same vector number,
the local APIC can set the bit for the vector both in the IRR and
the ISR. This means that for the Pentium 4 and Intel Xeon
processors, the IRR and ISR can queue two interrupts for each
interrupt vector: one in the IRR and one in the ISR. Any additional
interrupts issued for the same interrupt vector are collapsed into
the single bit in the IRR.
For the P6 family and Pentium processors, the IRR and ISR registers
can queue no more than two interrupts per priority level, and will
reject other interrupts that are received within the same priority
level.
If the local APIC receives an interrupt with a priority higher than
that of the interrupt currently in serviced, and interrupts are
enabled in the processor core, the local APIC dispatches the higher
priority interrupt to the processor immediately (without waiting for
a write to the EOI register). The currently executing interrupt
handler is then interrupted so the higher-priority interrupt can be
handled. When the handling of the higher-priority interrupt has been
completed, the servicing of the interrupted interrupt is resumed.
So another interrupt can be queued in the APIC in the IRR register though.
But we just handled all devices for that IRQ, so I would say it could be
skipped. Or not?
I'm also I little bit confused about the term "acknowledge", I couldn't
find that word in the intel documentation.
In your previous mail you said that linux did the "acking".
In a book I found it means unblocking the PIC, but I would suppose not
for the IRQ handled, but for all other IRQ's.
Because I understand now that no other IRQs of the same type cann't be
handled until the 'end-of-IRQ' signal.
Thus what does 'acknowledege' exactly mean?
For everyone interested I also found a nice description about Level-
and Edge triggered interrupts at wikipedia confirming your story at :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrupt#Level-triggered
Thanks for all help.
cheers
Harco
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6894 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-09-19 14:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-09-15 16:27 [Xenomai-help] keyboard interrupt Harco Kuppens
2008-09-17 21:33 ` Jan Kiszka
2008-09-18 8:58 ` Harco Kuppens
2008-09-19 6:53 ` Jan Kiszka
2008-09-19 14:06 ` Harco Kuppens [this message]
2008-09-21 10:38 ` Jan Kiszka
2008-09-22 9:52 ` Harco Kuppens
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=48D3B1F3.1020408@domain.hid \
--to=h.kuppens@domain.hid \
--cc=jan.kiszka@domain.hid \
--cc=xenomai@xenomai.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.