Re: [PATCH] irqchip/jcore: fix lost per-cpu interrupts

[Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>]

On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 09:23:58PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2016, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 01:03:10PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > My preference would just be to keep the branch, but with your improved
> > version that doesn't need a function call:
> > 
> > 	irqd_is_per_cpu(irq_desc_get_irq_data(desc))
> >
> > While there is some overhead testing this condition every time, I can
> > probably come up with several better places to look for a ~10 cycle
> > improvement in the irq code path without imposing new requirements on
> > the DT bindings.
> 
> Fair enough. Your call.
>  
> > As noted in my followup to the clocksource stall thread, there's also
> > a possibility that it might make sense to consider the current
> > behavior of having non-percpu irqs bound to a particular cpu as part
> > of what's required by the compatible tag, in which case
> > handle_percpu_irq or something similar/equivalent might be suitable
> > for both the percpu and non-percpu cases. I don't understand the irq
> > subsystem well enough to insist on that but I think it's worth
> > consideration since it looks like it would improve performance of
> > non-percpu interrupts a bit.
> 
> Well, you can use handle_percpu_irq() for your device interrupts if you
> guarantee at the hardware level that there is no reentrancy. Once you make
> the hardware capable of delivering them on either core the picture changes.

One more concern here -- I see that handle_simple_irq is handling the
soft-disable / IRQS_PENDING flag behavior, and irq_check_poll stuff
that's perhaps important too. Since soft-disable is all we have
(there's no hard-disable of interrupts), is this a problem? In other
words, can drivers have an expectation of not receiving interrupts
when the irq is disabled? I would think anything compatible with irq
sharing can't have such an expectation, but perhaps the kernel needs
disabling internally for synchronization at module-unload time or
similar cases?

If you think any of these things are problems I'll switch back to the
conditional version rather than using handle_percpu_irq for
everything.

Rich