From: Manuel Lauss <mano@roarinelk.homelinux.net>
To: Kevin Hickey <khickey@rmicorp.com>
Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
Linux-MIPS <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Alchemy: fix edge irq handling
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 07:20:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090127062036.GA14558@roarinelk.homelinux.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1233022725.14733.10.camel@kh-d820>
Kevin,
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 08:18:45PM -0600, Kevin Hickey wrote:
> Your example below is similar - debouncing the switch in hardware seems
> a better solution (albeit likely an expensive one) than patching the
> mainline kernel. And I reiterate: some devices send a lot of interrupts
> by design; we should honor their requests, not mask them out.
I agree in principle, but what's the point of honoring the requests if they
come in faster than the cpu can handle them? I think that's why the
handle_edge_irq() flowhandler masks the interrupt when another edge comes in
while the handler for the previous one is still running. This is also the
problem I'm running into: the second (and following) edges don't get acked
when the flowhandler tries to mask them, resulting in the irq storm. If I
explicitly ack it in the irq handler itself, all is well.
The current in-tree irq code bahaves differently than in <=2.6.28; this
patch restores this behaviour, and I believe it is the way the mask_ack()
callback is supposed to work. It affects only edge interrupts which come in
faster than the cpu can handle them; for all others there's no change (other
than 2 more stores in the mask fastpath).
(Or maybe it's a logic bug in handle_edge_irq(); I don't know.)
Thanks,
Manuel Lauss
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-27 6:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-20 10:03 [PATCH] Alchemy: fix edge irq handling Manuel Lauss
2009-01-21 0:47 ` Kevin Hickey
2009-01-21 6:48 ` Manuel Lauss
2009-01-27 2:18 ` Kevin Hickey
2009-01-27 6:20 ` Manuel Lauss [this message]
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=20090127062036.GA14558@roarinelk.homelinux.net \
--to=mano@roarinelk.homelinux.net \
--cc=khickey@rmicorp.com \
--cc=linux-mips@linux-mips.org \
--cc=ralf@linux-mips.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox