On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 05:32:30PM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> Nope. Interrupt priority masking is there to place an upper bound
> interrupt latency. That's why this feature is shipping in contemporary
> hardware (e.g. ARM GIC). If you care about real time workloads on arm64,
> that may interest
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 6:30 AM Finn Thain wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 13 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That scenario seems a little contrived to me (drivers for two or
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 09:10:57AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 11:11 PM Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > On 19/02/21 12:19 am, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > drivers/net/ethernet/8390/apne.c
> > > drivers/net/ethernet/8390/ax88796.c
> > >
Hi Michael,
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 11:11 PM Michael Schmitz wrote:
> On 19/02/21 12:19 am, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > drivers/net/ethernet/8390/apne.c
> > drivers/net/ethernet/8390/ax88796.c
> > drivers/net/ethernet/8390/hydra.c
> > drivers/net/ethernet/8390/mac8390.c
> >
On 19/02/21 12:19 am, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
drivers/net/ethernet/8390/apne.c
drivers/net/ethernet/8390/ax88796.c
drivers/net/ethernet/8390/hydra.c
drivers/net/ethernet/8390/mac8390.c
drivers/net/ethernet/8390/ne.c
drivers/net/ethernet/8390/zorro8390.c
[...]
Most of these are normal short-lived
Hi Arnd,
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 2:59 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 1:30 PM Geert Uytterhoeven
> wrote:
> > The reason drivers/ide is doing that may be related to IDE hard drive
> > quirks. The old WD Caviar drives didn't obey disabling the IDE interrupt
> > at the drive
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 1:30 PM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> The reason drivers/ide is doing that may be related to IDE hard drive
> quirks. The old WD Caviar drives didn't obey disabling the IDE interrupt
> at the drive level. On PC, that worked fine, as IRQs 14 and 15 weren't
> shared with
Hi Arnd,
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:20 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Most of these are normal short-lived interrupts that only transfer
> a few bytes or schedule deferred processing of some sort.
> Most of the scsi and network drivers process the data in
> a softirq, so those are generally fine
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 6:30 AM Finn Thain wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > > On Sat, 13 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > >
> > > That scenario seems a little contrived to me (drivers for two or more
> > > devices sharing state through their
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > So what is really confusing and a pain to me is that: For years
> > > people like me have been writing device drivers with the idea that
> > > irq handlers run with
> -Original Message-
> From: Finn Thain [mailto:fth...@telegraphics.com.au]
> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2021 6:11 PM
> To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann ; t...@linutronix.de;
> gre...@linuxfoundation.org; a...@arndb.de; ge...@linux-m68k.org;
> fun...@jurai.org;
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 7:12 AM Finn Thain wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > > So what is really confusing and a pain to me is that:
> > > For years people like me have been writing device drivers
> > > with the
On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 7:12 AM Finn Thain wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> > So what is really confusing and a pain to me is that:
> > For years people like me have been writing device drivers
> > with the idea that irq handlers run with interrupts
> > disabled
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
>
> So what is really confusing and a pain to me is that:
> For years people like me have been writing device drivers
> with the idea that irq handlers run with interrupts
> disabled after those commits in genirq. So I don't need
> to care
> -Original Message-
> From: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2021 11:13 AM
> To: 'Arnd Bergmann'
> Cc: t...@linutronix.de; gre...@linuxfoundation.org; a...@arndb.de;
> ge...@linux-m68k.org; fun...@jurai.org; ph...@gnu.org; cor...@lwn.net;
> mi...@redhat.com;
> -Original Message-
> From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:a...@kernel.org]
> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2021 5:32 AM
> To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
> Cc: t...@linutronix.de; gre...@linuxfoundation.org; a...@arndb.de;
> ge...@linux-m68k.org; fun...@jurai.org; ph...@gnu.org; cor...@lwn.net;
>
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 12:50 AM Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
wrote:
> So I was actually trying to warn this unusual case - interrupts
> get nested while both in_hardirq() and irqs_disabled() are true.
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/hardirq.h b/include/linux/hardirq.h
> index
> -Original Message-
> From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:a...@kernel.org]
> Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2021 12:06 PM
> To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
> Cc: t...@linutronix.de; gre...@linuxfoundation.org; a...@arndb.de;
> ge...@linux-m68k.org; fun...@jurai.org; ph...@gnu.org; cor...@lwn.net;
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 12:00 AM Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:a...@kernel.org]
> > Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2021 11:34 AM
> > To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
> > Cc: t...@linutronix.de; gre...@linuxfoundation.org;
> -Original Message-
> From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:a...@kernel.org]
> Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2021 11:34 AM
> To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
> Cc: t...@linutronix.de; gre...@linuxfoundation.org; a...@arndb.de;
> ge...@linux-m68k.org; fun...@jurai.org; ph...@gnu.org; cor...@lwn.net;
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 2:18 AM Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
wrote:
> So I am requesting comments on:
> 1. are we expecting all interrupts except NMI to be disabled in irq handler,
> or do we actually allow some high-priority interrupts between low and NMI to
> come in some platforms?
I tried to
Hi,
I am getting a very long debate with Finn in this thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1612697823-8073-1-git-send-email-tanxiao...@huawei.com/
In short, the debate is about if high-priority IRQs (*not NMI*)
are allowed to preempt an running IRQ handler in hardIRQ context.
In my
22 matches
Mail list logo
