Anders Blomdell wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>> Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> this is the final set of patches against the SVN trunk of 2006-02-03.
>>>>> It addresses mostly remarks concerning naming (XN_ISR_ISA ->
>>>>> XN_ISR_EDGE), a few cleanups and updated comments.
>>>>> Functionally, the support for shared interrupts (a few flags) to the
>>> Not directly your fault: the increasing number of return flags for IRQ
>>> handlers makes me worry that they are used correctly. I can figure out
>>> what they mean (not yet that clearly from the docs), but does someone
>>> else understand all this:
>> ISR says it has handled the IRQ, and does not want any propagation to
>> take place down the pipeline. IOW, the IRQ processing stops there.
> This says that the interrupt will be ->end'ed at some later time
> (perhaps in the interrupt handler task)
>> ISR says it wants the IRQ to be propagated down the pipeline. Nothing
>> is said about the fact that the last ISR did or did not handle the IRQ
>> locally; this is irrelevant.
> This says that the interrupt will eventually be ->end'ed by some later
> stage in the pipeline.
>> ISR requests the interrupt dispatcher to re-enable the IRQ line upon
>> return (cumulable with HANDLED/CHAINED).
> This says that the interrupt will be ->end'ed when this interrupt
> handler returns.
>> This new one comes from Dmitry's patch for shared IRQ support AFAICS.
>> It would mean to continue processing the chain of handlers because the
>> last ISR invoked was not concerned by the outstanding IRQ.
> Sounds like RT_INTR_CHAINED, except that it's for the current pipeline
> stage?
> Now for the quiz question (powerpc arch):
>   1. Assume an edge triggered interrupt
>   2. The RT-handler returns RT_INTR_ENABLE | RT_INTR_ENABLE (i.e. shared

Kind of redundant. What did you really mean?

>      interrupt, but no problem since it's edge-triggered)
>   3. Interrupt gets ->end'ed right after RT-handler has returned
>   4. Linux interrupt eventually handler starts its ->end() handler:
>         local_irq_save_hw(flags);
>         if (!(irq_desc[irq].status & (IRQ_DISABLED | IRQ_INPROGRESS)))
>           ipipe_irq_unlock(irq);
>     // Next interrupt occurs here!
>         __ipipe_std_irq_dtype[irq].end(irq);
>         local_irq_restore_hw(flags);
> Wouldn't this lead to a lost interrupt? Or am I overly paranoid?
> My distinct feeling is that the return value should be a scalar and not
> a set!

That's a good idea: only provide valid and reasonable flag combinations
to the user!

>> ...
>>> I would vote for the (already scheduled?) extension to register an
>>> optimised IRQ trampoline in case there is actually no sharing taking
>>> place. This would also make the "if (irq == XNARCH_TIMER_IRQ)" path
>>> obsolete.
>> I support that. Shared interrupts should be handled properly by Xeno
>> since such - I'd say "last resort" - configuration could be needed;
>> this said, we should not see this as the rule but rather as the
>> exception, since this is basically required to solve some underlying
>> hw limitations wrt interrupt management, and definitely has a
>> significant cost on processing each shared IRQ wrt determinism.
>> Incidentally, there is an interesting optimization on the project's
>> todo list 
> Is this todo list accessible anywhere?

I did not know of such interesting plans as well. Maybe we should start
using more of the feature GNA provide to us (task lists?)...

>> that would allow non-RT interrupts to be masked at IC level when
>> the Xenomai domain is active. We could do that on any arch with
>> civilized interrupt management, and that would prevent any
>> asynchronous diversion from the critical code when Xenomai is running
>> RT tasks (kernel or user-space). Think of this as some hw-controlled
>> interrupt shield. Since this feature requires to be able to
>> individually mask each interrupt source at IC level, there should be
>> no point in sharing fully vectored interrupts in such a configuration
>> anyway. This fact also pleads for having the shared IRQ support as a
>> build-time option.

This concept sound really thrilling. I already wondered if this is
possible after seeing how many non-RT IRQ stubs can hit between an RT
event and the RT task invocation: HD, network, keyboard, mouse, sound,
graphic card - and if you are "lucky", a lot of them chain up at the
same time. But I thought that such disabling is too costly for being
used at every domain switch. Is it not?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to