On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 22:44 -0800, Bill Irwin wrote:
>> What do you see as the obstacle to eliminating nested IRQ's?
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:34:52AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> political will, or maybe just the lack of convincing people so far
Political issues are significantly more difficult to resolve than
technical ones.
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 22:44 -0800, Bill Irwin wrote:
>> It doesn't
>> seem so far out to test for being on the interrupt stack and defer the
>> call to do_IRQ() until after the currently-running instance of do_IRQ()
>> has returned, or to move to per-irq stacks modulo special arrangements
>> for the per-cpu IRQ's. Or did you have other methods in mind?
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:34:52AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> it's simpler...
> irqreturn_t handle_IRQ_event(unsigned int irq, struct irqaction *action)
> {
> irqreturn_t ret, retval = IRQ_NONE;
> unsigned int status = 0;
>
> handle_dynamic_tick(action);
>
> if (!(action->flags & IRQF_DISABLED))
> local_irq_enable_in_hardirq();
>
> just removing the if() and the explicit IRQ enabling already makes irqs no
> longer nest...
I can see why that would raise eyebrows. I can see getting bashed
mercilessly with interrupt latency concerns as a result here. Can you
suggest any defenses?
-- wli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
