Re: [Xenomai] IO-APIC latencies

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>]

On 2012-09-17 20:08, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 09/17/2012 08:05 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> 
>> On 2012-09-17 19:46, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> ipipe_end is a nop when called from primary domain, yes, but this is not
>>> very different from edge irqs. Also, fasteoi become a bit like MSI: in
>>> the same way as we can not mask MSI from primary domain, we should not
>>> mask IO-APIC fasteoi irqs, because the cost is too prohibitive. If we
>>> can live with MSI without masking them in primary mode, I guess we can
>>> do the same with fasteoi irqs.
>>
>> MSIs are edge triggered, fasteois are still level-based. They require
>> masking at the point you defer them - what we do and what Linux may even
>> extend beyond that. If you mask them by raising the task priority, you
>> have to keep it raised until Linux finally handled the IRQ.
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> Or you
>> decide to mask it at IO-APIC level again.
> 
> 
> We do not want that.
> 
>> If you keep the TPR raised,
>> you will block more than what Linux wants to block.
> 
> 
> The point is that if the TPR keeps raised, it means that primary domain
> has preempted Linux, so, we want it to keep that way. Otherwise the TPR
> gets lowered when Linux has handled the interrupt.
> 
> A week-end of testing made me sure of one thing: it works. I assure you.

Probably, in the absence of IRQF_ONESHOT Linux interrupts. No longer if
you face threaded IRQs - I assure you.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux