RE: [RFC 06/12] genirq: Add per-cpu flow handler with conditional IRQ stats

Thomas Gleixner
2024-06-05T13:20:21Z

On Tue, Jun 04 2024 at 23:03, Michael Kelley wrote:
> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 11:14 AM
>> 1) Move the inner workings of handle_percpu_irq() out into
>> a static function which returns the 'handled' value and
>> share it between the two handler functions.
>
> The "inner workings" aren't quite the same in the two cases.
> handle_percpu_irq() uses handle_irq_event_percpu() while
> handle_percpu_demux_irq() uses __handle_irq_event_percpu().
> The latter doesn't do add_interrupt_randomness() because the
> demultiplexed IRQ handler will do it. Doing add_interrupt_randomness()
> twice doesn't break anything, but it's more overhead in the hard irq
> path, which I'm trying to avoid. The extra functionality in the
> non-double-underscore version could be hoisted up to
> handle_percpu_irq(), but that offsets gains from sharing the
> inner workings.

That's not rocket science to solve:

static irqreturn_t helper(desc, func)
{
boiler_plate..
ret = func(desc)
boiler_plate..
return ret;
}

No?

TBH, I still hate that conditional accounting :)

>> 2) Allocate a proper interrupt for the management mode and invoke it
>> via generic_handle_irq() just as any other demultiplex interrupt.
>> That spares all the special casing in the core code and just
>> works.
>
> Yes, this would work on x86, as the top-level interrupt isn't a Linux IRQ,
> and the interrupt counting is done in Hyper-V specific code that could be
> removed. The demux'ed interrupt does the counting.
>
> But on arm64 the top-level interrupt *is* a Linux IRQ, so each
> interrupt will get double-counted, which is a problem.

What is the problem?

You have: toplevel, mgmt, device[], right?

They are all accounted for seperately and each toplevel interrupt might
result in demultiplexing one or more interrupts (mgmt, device[]), no?

IMO accounting the toplevel interrupt seperately is informative because
it allows you to figure out whether demultiplexing is clustered or not,
but I lost that argument long ago. That's why most demultiplex muck
installs a chained handler, which is a design fail on it's own.

Thanks,

tglx