[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1006020913310.2933@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 09:19:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Long playing threaded interrupt handlers
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> HI Thomas,
>
> The threaded IRQ infrastructure that went into the kernel is extremely
> helpful, however in the input land there are quite a few devices that
> require polling after an IRQ has been raised.
>
> Currently most such drivers, instead of threaded interrupts, still use
> [delayed] work to do the polling, and still face the issue of shutting
> down interrupt and scheduled work in a raceless way leaving irq enable
> counter balanced. Is it allowed to have threaded ISR execute for
> extended a amount of time, and do the required polling, provided that
> ISR does certain checks to finish promply in case when we unbind the
> driver or try to suspend the device?
Sure, why not ? The only thing we need to think about is when the poll
is busy polling for a long time, then we need to lower the irq thread
priority to SCHED_OTHER in order not to hog the CPU.
Vs. shutdown: The thread handler needs to be aware of a shutdown
request in it's poll loop, so something like this should work:
handler()
{
while (work_to_do() && !shutdown) {
.....
}
}
unbind()
{
shutdown = 1;
free_irq();
}
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists