linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Jan-Bernd Themann <THEMANN@de.ibm.com>,
	dvhltc@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Will Schmidt <will_schmidt@vnet.ibm.com>,
	Brian King <brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	niv@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Doug Maxey <doug.maxey@us.ibm.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT] ehea: make receive irq handler non-threaded (IRQF_NODELAY)
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 07:39:27 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BF5499F.8050203@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1005200950410.3368@localhost.localdomain>

On 05/20/2010 01:14 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2010, Jan-Bernd Themann wrote:
>>>> Thought more about that. The case at hand (ehea) is nasty:
>>>>
>>>> The driver does _NOT_ disable the rx interrupt in the card in the rx
>>>> interrupt handler - for whatever reason.
>>>
>>> Yeah I saw that, but I don't know why it's written that way. Perhaps
>>> Jan-Bernd or Doug will chime in and enlighten us? :)
>>
>>  From our perspective there is no need to disable interrupts for the
>> RX side as the chip does not fire further interrupts until we tell
>> the chip to do so for a particular queue. We have multiple receive
>
> The traces tell a different story though:
>
>      ehea_recv_irq_handler()
>        napi_reschedule()
>      eoi()
>      ehea_poll()
>        ...
>        ehea_recv_irq_handler()<---------------- ???
>          napi_reschedule()
>        ...
>        napi_complete()
>
> Can't tell whether you can see the same behaviour in mainline, but I
> don't see a reason why not.

I was going to suggest that because these are threaded handlers, perhaps 
they are rescheduled on a different CPU and then receive the interrupt 
for the other CPU/queue that Jan was mentioning.

But, the handlers are affined if I remember correctly, and we aren't 
running with multiple receive queues. So, we're back to the same 
question, why are we seeing another irq. It comes in before 
napi_complete() and therefor before the ehea_reset*() block of calls 
which do the equivalent of re-enabling interrupts.

--
Darren

>
>> queues with an own interrupt each so that the interrupts can arrive
>> on multiple CPUs in parallel.  Interrupts are enabled again when we
>> leave the NAPI Poll function for the corresponding receive queue.
>
> I can't see a piece of code which does that, but that's probably just
> lack of detailed hardware knowledge on my side.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 	tglx


-- 
Darren Hart
IBM Linux Technology Center
Real-Time Linux Team

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-05-20 14:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <4BF30793.5070300@us.ibm.com>
2010-05-18 21:52 ` [PATCH RT] ehea: make receive irq handler non-threaded (IRQF_NODELAY) Brian King
2010-05-18 22:19   ` Nivedita Singhvi
2010-05-18 22:22   ` Darren Hart
2010-05-19  1:25     ` Michael Ellerman
2010-05-19 14:16       ` Darren Hart
2010-05-19 14:38         ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-05-19 21:08           ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-05-20  1:34             ` Michael Ellerman
2010-05-20  7:37               ` Jan-Bernd Themann
2010-05-20  8:14                 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-05-20  9:05                   ` Jan-Bernd Themann
2010-05-20  9:19                     ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-05-20 14:26                       ` Nivedita Singhvi
2010-05-20 14:53                     ` Will Schmidt
2010-05-20 14:39                   ` Darren Hart [this message]
2010-05-20 14:45                     ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-05-20 21:44                       ` Will Schmidt
2010-05-20  1:32           ` Michael Ellerman
2010-05-20  8:21             ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-05-21  9:18               ` [PATCH RT] ehea: make receive irq handler non-threaded (IRQF_NODELAY), " Milton Miller
2010-09-20 14:26                 ` Jan-Bernd Themann
2010-05-20  1:28         ` Michael Ellerman
2010-05-21  9:02           ` Milton Miller

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=4BF5499F.8050203@us.ibm.com \
    --to=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=THEMANN@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=doug.maxey@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=dvhltc@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=niv@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=will_schmidt@vnet.ibm.com \
    /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).