From: Jose Luis Marchetti <joseluismarchetti@yahoo.com.br>
To: Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@gmail.com>
Cc: Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Is interrupt priority supported ?
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:17:38 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <260723.67629.qm@web34408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <499DFF79.6090404@gmail.com>
> It doesn't really work that way in Linux. Normally
> disabling interrupts is all or nothing. Whether or not other
> devices can cause interrupts during an interrupt handler
> execution by default is a bit platform-dependent, I think
> (unless the driver requests IRQF_DISABLED which requests
> that other interrupts should not run).
>
> Normally in Ethernet drivers these days only very minimal
> processing is done during the interrupt handler, the rest is
> deferred to softirq context which runs with interrupts
> enabled so other interrupts can happen. That's not to
> say that all Ethernet drivers are so well-behaved, however,
> especially if they haven't been updated to use NAPI. (In
> the NAPI case, the driver disables further interrupts from
> the device until the softirq is able to run and process the
> packets.) In your case it seems likely that yours is not
> behaving so well, as one would expect the interrupt handler
> to complete in less than the time it takes one character to
> arrive on the serial port..
Interesting, thanks for all the info, I had to research before responding.
It appears network cards was one of the reasons for the softirqs, there is two definitions for network cards in softirqs.
Yes, I looked the DM9000 driver and saw the data being read inside the interrupts so... you are right, that driver was not changed to use softirqs.
I also saw how the IRQF_DISABLED flag works.
I Think using this flag is the way to go for my 4 byte FIFO uart, I would say a 4 byte FIFO is critical enough to be read inside an interrupt.
I know it is kind of strange, the correct way it would be to fix the Ethernet driver and instead of doing that I will not allow any other interrupt inside the uart interrupt, which degrades the system somehow.
What do you think ?
Do you know if the same kind of problem I am having with Ethernet is also seen with USBs ?
Thanks again for all your response.
Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados
http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-23 3:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-19 20:24 Is interrupt priority supported ? Jose Luis Marchetti
2009-02-19 20:49 ` Andreas Mohr
2009-02-20 0:33 ` Jose Luis Marchetti
2009-02-20 0:55 ` Robert Hancock
2009-02-23 3:17 ` Jose Luis Marchetti [this message]
2009-02-20 0:26 ` Robert Hancock
2009-02-20 0:36 ` Jose Luis Marchetti
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=260723.67629.qm@web34408.mail.mud.yahoo.com \
--to=joseluismarchetti@yahoo.com.br \
--cc=andi@lisas.de \
--cc=hancockrwd@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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