[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090130030758.GA7004@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 06:07:58 +0300
From: Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.28-rt on PowerPC
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 01:11:50PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > This is trivially solved by converting arch/powerpc/sysdev/ipic.c
> > back to spinlocks (ipic_lock).
> >
> > Assuming that converting-back is automatic, there are few other
> > chained interrupt controllers you might want to convert-back:
> >
> > arch/powerpc/sysdev/i8259.c (i8259_lock)
> > arch/powerpc/sysdev/mpic.c (mpic_lock)
> > arch/powerpc/sysdev/qe_lib/qe_ic.c (qe_ic_lock)
>
> Except that a bunch of those can be both primary and chained...
Yeah, thanks for correcting.
> It's
> simply not a solution to have to "convert" interrupt controller code to
> use a different locking scheme depending on whether they are chained or
> primary...
Actually, it doesn't matter whether a controller is a root IC or
cascaded. Just as primary handlers, chained handlers don't run in
threads, thus spinlocks should be used, not sleeping locks.
--
Anton Vorontsov
email: cbouatmailru@...il.com
irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2
--
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