> There may be some implicit assumption in that we expect the cpu > priority to be returned to normal by the EOI, but there is nothing in > the hardware that requires the EOI to come from the same cpu as > accepted the interrupt for processing, with the exception of the IPI > which is per-cpu (and the only interrupt that is per-cpu).
Well, there is one fundamental one: The XIRR register we access is per-CPU, so if we are to return the right processor priority, we must make sure we write the right XIRR. Same with Cell, MPIC, actually and a few others. In general I'd say most fast_eoi type PICs have this requirement. > It would probably mean adding the concept of the current cpu priority > vs interrupts and making sure we write it to hardware at irq_exit() > time when deferring the actual irq handlers. I think we need something like a special -rt variant of the fast_eoi handler that masks & eoi's in ack() before the thread is spun off, and unmasks instead of eoi() when the irq processing is complete. Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev