From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: Wang Dongsheng-B40534 <Dongsheng.Wang@freescale.com>
Cc: "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/mpic: supply a .disable callback
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 15:19:42 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1389129582.11795.190.camel@snotra.buserror.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a889eb6414b44d418a34bc5e61fc538a@BN1PR03MB188.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 04:18 -0600, Wang Dongsheng-B40534 wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt [mailto:benh@kernel.crashing.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 1:50 PM
> > To: Wang Dongsheng-B40534
> > Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/mpic: supply a .disable callback
> >
> > On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 13:38 +0800, Dongsheng Wang wrote:
> > > From: Wang Dongsheng <dongsheng.wang@freescale.com>
> > >
> > > Currently MPIC provides .mask, but not .disable. This means that
> > > effectively disable_irq() soft-disables the interrupt, and you get
> > > a .mask call if an interrupt actually occurs.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if this was intended as a performance benefit (it seems common
> > > to omit .disable on powerpc interrupt controllers, but nowhere else), but it
> > > interacts badly with threaded/workqueue interrupts (including KVM
> > > reflection). In such cases, where the real interrupt handler does a
> > > disable_irq_nosync(), schedules defered handling, and returns, we get two
> > > interrupts for every real interrupt. The second interrupt does nothing
> > > but see that IRQ_DISABLED is set, and decide that it would be a good
> > > idea to actually call .mask.
> >
> > We probably don't want to do that for edge, only level interrupts.
> >
> Sorry Ben, I am not understand your comments.
>
> This issue is the kernel api irq_disable() only use chip->irq_disable(), but mpic
> not have this interface so we don't real disable the interrupt.
I think he means that the "two interrupts for every real interrupt"
effect will only happen with level triggered interrupts, and he'd like
to keep the potential performance benefit of lazy disabling for edge
interrupts.
To implement this for "ordinary" edge interrupts (not IPI, timer, etc)
we'd need to add a new .irq_disable() function that checks whether it's
level/edge and only calls .irq_mask() if level -- or, introduce a
separate struct irq_chip for edge versus level.
-Scott
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-07 21:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-07 5:38 [PATCH] powerpc/mpic: supply a .disable callback Dongsheng Wang
2014-01-07 5:49 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-01-07 10:18 ` Dongsheng.Wang
2014-01-07 21:19 ` Scott Wood [this message]
2014-01-07 23:11 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-01-07 6:38 ` Scott Wood
2014-01-07 9:55 ` Dongsheng.Wang
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=1389129582.11795.190.camel@snotra.buserror.net \
--to=scottwood@freescale.com \
--cc=Dongsheng.Wang@freescale.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).