[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4713E713.9060702@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:17:55 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
CC: Ayaz Abdulla <aabdulla@...dia.com>, nedev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: MSI interrupts and disable_irq
Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>
>> I think the scenario you outline is an illustration of the approach's
>> fragility: disable_irq() is a heavy hammer that originated with INTx,
>> and it relies on a chip-specific disable method (kernel/irq/manage.c)
>> that practically guarantees behavior will vary across MSI/INTx/etc.
>>
> I checked the code: IRQ_DISABLE is implemented in software, i.e.
> handle_level_irq() only calls handle_IRQ_event() [and then the nic irq
> handler] if IRQ_DISABLE is not set.
> OTHO: The last trace looks as if nv_do_nic_poll() is interrupted by an irq.
>
> Perhaps something corrupts dev->irq? The irq is requested with
> request_irq(np->pci_dev->irq, handler, IRQF_SHARED, dev->name, dev)
> and disabled with
> disable_irq_lockdep(dev->irq);
>
> Someone around with a MSI capable board? The forcedeth driver does
> dev->irq = pci_dev->irq
> in nv_probe(), especially before pci_enable_msi().
> Does pci_enable_msi() change pci_dev->irq? Then we would disable the
> wrong interrupt....
Remember, fundamentally MSI-X is a one-to-many relationship, when you
consider a single PCI device might have multiple vectors.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists