From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753036Ab0CZMGj (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:06:39 -0400 Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:58927 "EHLO mail2.shareable.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752305Ab0CZMGg (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:06:36 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:06:20 +0000 From: Jamie Lokier To: Nicolas Pitre Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Alan Cox , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , LKML , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Andi Kleen , David Miller , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Russell King Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] Run interrupt handlers always with interrupts disabled Message-ID: <20100326120620.GD19308@shareable.org> References: <20100326000325.917127328@linutronix.de> <20100326081457.GA23570@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20100326092023.GH27394@elte.hu> <20100326095929.063c5f63@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1269598133.12097.138.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 09:59 +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > As long as it's rare (which it is) i dont see a problem: you can enable > > > > interrupts in the handler by using local_irq_enable(), like the IDE PIO > > > > drivers do. That way it's documented a bit better as well, because it shows > > > > the precise source of the latency, with a big comment explaining it, etc. > > > > > > I don't think it's as rare as you think particularly in embedded, and the > > > moment you start explicitly using local_irq_enable() you've simply moved > > > the underlying problem back and made it far harder to grep for. > > > > We've got local_irq_enable_in_hardirq() which should be used and can > > easily be grep'ed for. > > > > But yes, I would much prefer to simply convert these known slow handlers > > to threaded interrupts. > > Can't do that. The smc91x has a very small internal buffer which has to > be emptied using PIO. Threaded interrupts simply have too high > latencies for overruns not to occur. That's why the RX path is entirely > done in hardirq context while the TX path is done in softirq context. Although I wouldn't be surprised to find threaded interrupts are too slow on certain hardware, is that _fundamental_ to threaded interrupts, or is it just that our implementation doesn't have the funky hot path straight direct from hardirq -> running high priority RT irq thread when it exceeds previously running priority? In other words, can we swizzle threaded irqs into something more resembling software-implemented hard irq priorities, while cunningly updating the kernel state just enough to look like it's a thread? -- Jamie