[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1222290847.8277.81.camel@pasglop>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:14:07 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Raisch <RAISCH@...ibm.com>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
Jan-Bernd Themann <ossthema@...ibm.com>,
Sebastien Dugue <sebastien.dugue@...l.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH HACK] powerpc: quick hack to get a functional eHEA with
hardirq preemption
> 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.
--
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