[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100602074520.GI3713@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 00:45:20 -0700
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Long playing threaded interrupt handlers
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:19:21AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 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 ?
Great, that is what I wanted to hear!
> 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.
I don't think the drivers will actively polling for a long time, they
are likely to poll and then sleep for some time (100-200-300 msecs), so
typical loop will be:
handler()
{
while (!shutdown_or_suspend) {
poll_device();
if (all_up)
break;
msleep(poll_interval);
}
return IRQ_HANDLED;
}
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
--
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