[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DC74729.9090508@goop.org>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 11:45:13 +1000
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
CC: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...citrix.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"JBeulich@...ell.com" <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: don't unmask disabled irqs when migrating
them
On 05/09/2011 10:44 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> It doesn't really need to be an irq. The main reason was so that it would
>> appear in /proc/interrupts so I could use the counter as a "number of times a
>> spinlock was kicked" counter. That could be exposed in some other way if
>> being part of the interrupt infrastructure brings too much baggage with it.
>>
> Perhaps we don't need an irq binding here. Just like a local APIC interrupt
> source which only needs vector. Somehow the virq or vipi concept in Xen
> context is similar.
An event channel is logically equivalent to a vector, so that would make
sense. We currently allocate irqs for cross-cpu call and reschedule
event channels, whereas native x86 simply uses a naked vector for
those. But they are real interrupts, so an irq at least makes some
logical sense in those cases.
For spinlocks, the event channel is more like a usermode-level signal
which is always blocked and only ever tested with sigsuspend (or is it
sigpoll? something like that).
J
--
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