Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1699825
| From | Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: IRQ_ONESHOT expectations vs mask/unmask |
| Date | 2017-07-31 10:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u9eyL-40A-33@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <u9cZY-3eT-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <u9cZY-3eT-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <u9ep4-3Xg-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 09:09 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > You asked a lot of questions, but you failed to explain the problem for > > XICS. > > I did but maybe it wasn't clear :-) > > "So on some PICs on powerpc, while we do use "fast EOI", we also> > > have a chance of edge interrupts (MSIs) being lost while masked." > > Basically, a masked interrupt might get dropped rather than "latched", > so if we use the existing fasteoi handler with IRQF_ONESHOT, we'll > lose them if they occur at the wrong time. > > I could use something like the edge_eoi flow handler instead I suppose > but that will *never* lazy disable which is somewhat unfortunate, very > fast paced MSIs benefit from being HW masked if we already recorded > that they occurred. > > So what I would need is something along the line of ONESHOT as done in > fasteoi but only for level interrupts. If that MSI interrupt is using a separate interrupt chip, then the solution is simple. You just have to add IRQCHIP_ONESHOT_SAFE to chip.flags Thanks, tglx
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: IRQ_ONESHOT expectations vs mask/unmask Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-07-31 09:10 +0200
Re: IRQ_ONESHOT expectations vs mask/unmask Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> - 2017-07-31 10:40 +0200
Re: IRQ_ONESHOT expectations vs mask/unmask Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-07-31 10:50 +0200
csiph-web