From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B9A627707; Mon, 27 Oct 2025 08:18:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761553091; cv=none; b=NFfLOfg15E27wiJSXK/4plox55smKvxm0CY68uhIpKFU+saTAi6TEb6tulxiXxbfl9yhRtWCryCttDelFf+Jf5dIPPogvfTi3o3ir22P62PwrG5Hso6aNvHDplYwhkUEqckjq5adk8EM4ecwHOVQUAgDPLxVDjkPvG9N6Bx0ilQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761553091; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DLi8g6Oj/iDrhzEAtnGQgxVttfk4hh/NPB/PrtkWn1Y=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Ml/CLp1F5USnzgTY27ZeOUeao+JL045eXaOgRMcdQJK0CVyi6EyD3sYwvQFxnbYBm/hFQSdVR94wHxVyXURdLQs0O9IqFzsLTAiZVeFEl5mC6zHvjAb/baozHijpnmFrqjji4o54CjfUqp6mJ/vQerSS299dfZay5Kuf+w9AFcQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=SeQqQxcX; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=ue+Jdu1w; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="SeQqQxcX"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="ue+Jdu1w" Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 09:18:06 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1761553088; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Gqwfnd8t9SkEUWxijRcqaEcKFFa1ld0wc1cHax1Cfzc=; b=SeQqQxcXDd0RzcAXMscFU/guFBAi2ZyoUFD69PseIs8UaVMC1hm8x27V6sIGCfG+wO5d7J /wL6aV7pYKleuWgbJn+yNDDO46ZX2gOoTkM+IhukwK+EqGqpiAqdptC/b0pdgcqQ+B7K2p LY7o4PXvX89SoEvGNUKCFROgU4Hlt9s5Rl4No4OkdBY1HUzZQQ5ns5qXU49IGfLmNzlI+r B1hhx0vhwFX5kGnyMPjRrIsSdBrVQVWoeupZZEmmCbyTBW7+9tsYZgNzw7BFjwpmfhZeUB 6+xoq6vwhp8HGZbfb5wzdzwJis3t9UenJNChmJcQsP2yhi0eFxVUY+u/NKlfHQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1761553088; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Gqwfnd8t9SkEUWxijRcqaEcKFFa1ld0wc1cHax1Cfzc=; b=ue+Jdu1wW99KrwTGoxpoKZOFMSpRePbHG3BTg9vUaDLbdj6acFJUOd+xjapHc5LRJKYjWb eefgB2MAAsyGy2Aw== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Lukas Wunner Cc: Crystal Wood , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , Clark Williams , Steven Rostedt , Dietmar Eggemann , Ben Segall , Mel Gorman , Valentin Schneider , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Attila Fazekas , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev, Bjorn Helgaas , Mahesh J Salgaonkar , Oliver OHalloran Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq/manage: Reduce priority of forced secondary IRQ handler Message-ID: <20251027081806.qoogsX3l@linutronix.de> References: <83f58870043e2ae64f19b3a2169b5c3cf3f95130.1757346718.git.lukas@wunner.de> <87348g95yd.ffs@tglx> <1b3684b424af051b5cb1fbce9ab65fc5cdf2b1a1.camel@redhat.com> <20251024133332.wSQOgUZb@linutronix.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On 2025-10-27 07:40:46 [+0100], Lukas Wunner wrote: > > I suspect it was a non-issue because of IRQCHIP_ONESHOT_SAFE disabling > > the forced oneshot (the other irq was pciehp). Given that these are > > pcie-specific, do they ever get used without MSI (which sets > > IRQCHIP_ONESHOT_SAFE)[1]? > > It seems fragile to depend on IRQCHIP_ONESHOT_SAFE. What about irqchips > which don't set that? What about PCIe ports which use legacy INTx > instead of MSI? exactly. > Long story short, I'll respin the patch to reduce the forced secondary > thread's priority, taking into account Thomas' feedback. > (Apologies for not having done this earlier.) no worries, thanks for the spin up. > Thanks, > > Lukas Sebastian