From: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>
To: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Cc: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip: omap-intc: add support for spurious irq handling
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:57:13 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56702341.50309@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56699762.1030501@ti.com>
On Thursday 10 December 2015 08:46 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> Hi Felipe,
>
> On Tuesday 08 December 2015 07:15 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com> writes:
>
>>> + /*
>>> + * A spurious IRQ can result if interrupt that triggered the
>>> + * sorting is no longer active during the sorting (10 INTC
>>> + * functional clock cycles after interrupt assertion). Or a
>>> + * change in interrupt mask affected the result during sorting
>>> + * time. There is no special handling required except ignoring
>>> + * the SIR register value just read and retrying.
>>> + * See section 6.2.5 of AM335x TRM Literature Number: SPRUH73K
>>> + *
>>> + * Many a times, a spurious interrupt situation has been fixed
>>> + * by adding a flush for the posted write acking the IRQ in
>>> + * the device driver. Typically, this is going be the device
>>> + * driver whose interrupt was handled just before the spurious
>>> + * IRQ occurred. Pay attention to those device drivers if you
>>> + * run into hitting the spurious IRQ condition below.
>>> + */
>>> + if ((irqnr & SPURIOUSIRQ_MASK) == SPURIOUSIRQ_MASK) {
>>
>> sounds like unlikely() wouldn't hurt here.
>
> I can add, but looks like it does not make a big difference. See below.
>
>>
>>> + pr_err_once("%s: spurious irq!\n", __func__);
>>> + irq_err_count++;
>>> + omap_ack_irq(NULL);
>>> + return;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> irqnr &= ACTIVEIRQ_MASK;
>>> - WARN_ONCE(!irqnr, "Spurious IRQ ?\n");
>>> handle_domain_irq(domain, irqnr, regs);
>>
>> care to run kernel function profiler against omap_intc_handle_irq()
>> before and after this patch ?
>
> Before this patch I see average running time time of 34us. That
> increases to 37.8us after this patch. With unlikely() the number I got
> was 37.4us. So the benefit with unlikely() is in the noise range.
>
> This was using AM335x EVM at 720 MHz.
Just sent a v3 with unlikely() and profiling information added to commit
message.
Thanks,
Sekhar
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-15 14:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-08 11:02 [PATCH v2] irqchip: omap-intc: add support for spurious irq handling Sekhar Nori
2015-12-08 13:45 ` Felipe Balbi
2015-12-10 15:16 ` Sekhar Nori
2015-12-15 14:27 ` Sekhar Nori [this message]
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=56702341.50309@ti.com \
--to=nsekhar@ti.com \
--cc=balbi@ti.com \
--cc=jason@lakedaemon.net \
--cc=john.ogness@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony@atomide.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