linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/57] microblaze_v7: Interrupt handling, timer support, selfmod code

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <49C3A7CA.8040500@monstr.eu>
Date:	Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:27:22 +0100
From:	Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, john.williams@...alogix.com,
	John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/57] microblaze_v7: Interrupt handling, timer support,
 selfmod code

Thomas,
> Michal,
> 
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Michal Simek wrote:
>>> I guess the problem is in your chip->xxx functions.
>> I fixed it. There were one additional line.
>> + I set GENERIC_HARDIRQS_NO__DO_IRQ=y.
> 
> Cool.

:-)

NO_HZ works too. Here is the log.

# cat /proc/interrupts
                CPU0
  3:       3827     level     INTC  timer
  8:       1834      edge     INTC  uartlite
# uptime
 00:16:47 up 16 min, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
# uptime
 00:17:53 up 17 min, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
# cat /proc/interrupts
                CPU0
  3:       4105     level     INTC  timer
  8:       1913      edge     INTC  uartlite
# uptime
 00:21:44 up 21 min, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
# cat /proc/interrupts
                CPU0
  3:       4615     level     INTC  timer
  8:       1970      edge     INTC  uartlite
#

> 
>> BTW: Below is full chip description where function enable is unmask
>> and disable is mask. Do I have keep there enable and disable function pointers?
>> I commented them and works without them too.
> 
> Right. The generic code does:
> 
>         if (!chip->enable)
>                 chip->enable = default_enable;
>         if (!chip->disable)
>                 chip->disable = default_disable;

I look at default implementation and seems to me that I can save some
instruction when I use my enable function not generic one and for disabling is
default function faster because do nothing.
I am going to send one email with full intc.c + 2 changes - one in irq.c and
second in Kconfig.

Thanks,
Michal

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx


-- 
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng)
w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854
--
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/