public inbox for linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Jaccon Bastiaansen <jaccon.bastiaansen@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Threaded interrupt handling question in RT kernel
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:31:50 +0200 (CEST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1108161729130.2807@ionos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGzjT4eGV-KLFNuE2F8ehYCEdi7DT8wo_tYbkUQHPxjuArHc2Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Jaccon Bastiaansen wrote:

> Hello Thomas, Peter
> 
> We have a question about threaded interrupt handling:
> 
> By default, when using threaded interrupt handlers, the IRQ is
> disabled in hard IRQ context and enabled again after all threaded
> interrupt handlers connected to that IRQ have run. In this way, high
> priority interrupt handlers can be delayed until the lowest priority
> interrupt handler thread has run. Therefore it seems that it's not
> useful to have a separate thread for each interrupt handler (what's
> the use of being able to set interrupt handler thread priorities when
> you still have to wait for the one with the lowest priority).

That's correct, but RT just makes use of the general facility which is
designed to have a separate thread for each device.
 
> So we think that we should use the request_threaded_irq() function.

You can do that for a specific driver, but we cannot do that in RT for
every driver in the kernel.

> The task of the handler that is executed in hard IRQ context is to
> check whether the device that it controls is generating an interrupt
> and if it does, deactivate the IRQ output of the device and wakeup the
> interrupt handler thread by returning IRQ_WAKE_THREAD. By deactivating
> the IRQ output, another device connected to the same IRQ can activate
> the IRQ again before the interrupt handler thread of the first device
> has run. This guarantees that a high priority threaded interrupt
> handler of a device on a shared IRQ can run before a low priority
> threaded interrupt handler of a device on the same IRQ has run. So
> when using threaded interrupt handlers for devices on a shared IRQ,
> make sure that all drivers have used request_threaded_irq().
> Otherwise, high priority threaded interrupt handlers can be delayed by
> low priority threaded interrupt handlers.
> 
> Is all this correct or do we miss something?

That's how it's designed to work.

Thanks,

	tglx

      reply	other threads:[~2011-08-16 15:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-08-16 14:28 Threaded interrupt handling question in RT kernel Jaccon Bastiaansen
2011-08-16 15:31 ` Thomas Gleixner [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=alpine.LFD.2.02.1108161729130.2807@ionos \
    --to=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=jaccon.bastiaansen@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.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