From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tglx@linutronix.de (Thomas Gleixner) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:31:20 +0100 (CET) Subject: Get rid of IRQF_DISABLED - (was [PATCH] genirq: warn about IRQF_SHARED|IRQF_DISABLED) In-Reply-To: <1259611151.2076.101.camel@pasglop> References: <1259356206-14843-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <1259578067-29169-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <1259589780.26472.18.camel@laptop> <1259611151.2076.101.camel@pasglop> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > Well, thing is, in cases where we have a sane PIC, the PIC itself is > perfectly good at keeping the source and anything of the same priority > or lower masked while we handle an irq. Unfortunately the majority of PICs does not fall into that category. > So disabling local CPU IRQs will basically add an unnecessary blocking > of both timer interrupts and perfmon interrupts while doing so. > > Yes, all driver interrupt handlers -should- be only running short amount > of code in their handlers but you know how it is. The drift introduced > on timer and perfmon events can be a problem, the later might even make > it difficult to figure out what an -interrupt- is taking more time than > it should. The timer problem only affects the old style tick/jiffies driven hardware where you have no continous clock source for keeping track of time. Even x86 managed to do something about that recently :) Are the perf events on power generally coming through the standard irq handler code path and/or sensitive to local_irq_disable() ? > I would suggest we timestamp the handlers in the core btw and warn if > they take too long so we get a chance to track down the bad guys. The hassle is to find a time which we think is appropriate as a threshold which is of course depending on the cpu power of a system. Also I wonder whether we'd need to make such a warning thing aware of irq nesting. Thanks, tglx