linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RT] ehea: make receive irq handler non-threaded (IRQF

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1005200950410.3368@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 20 May 2010 10:14:02 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Jan-Bernd Themann <THEMANN@...ibm.com>
cc:	michael@...erman.id.au, Brian King <brking@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Doug Maxey <doug.maxey@...ibm.com>, dvhltc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, niv@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Will Schmidt <will_schmidt@...t.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT] ehea: make receive irq handler non-threaded
 (IRQF_NODELAY)

On Thu, 20 May 2010, Jan-Bernd Themann wrote:
> > > Thought more about that. The case at hand (ehea) is nasty:
> > >
> > > The driver does _NOT_ disable the rx interrupt in the card in the rx
> > > interrupt handler - for whatever reason.
> >
> > Yeah I saw that, but I don't know why it's written that way. Perhaps
> > Jan-Bernd or Doug will chime in and enlighten us? :)
> 
> From our perspective there is no need to disable interrupts for the
> RX side as the chip does not fire further interrupts until we tell
> the chip to do so for a particular queue. We have multiple receive

The traces tell a different story though:

    ehea_recv_irq_handler()
      napi_reschedule()
    eoi()
    ehea_poll()
      ...
      ehea_recv_irq_handler()    <---------------- ???
        napi_reschedule()
      ...
      napi_complete()

Can't tell whether you can see the same behaviour in mainline, but I
don't see a reason why not.

> queues with an own interrupt each so that the interrupts can arrive
> on multiple CPUs in parallel.  Interrupts are enabled again when we
> leave the NAPI Poll function for the corresponding receive queue.

I can't see a piece of code which does that, but that's probably just
lack of detailed hardware knowledge on my side.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/