Thanks a lot Jan and Philippe for their explanations; now it's getting clear in 
the understanding of these interactions. We then have to rework out a bit
the ARM patch to have a clean implementation of the IRQ virtualization.
(and this explains why we still got some timing issues).

Daniel


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Philippe Gerum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Envoyé : dimanche, 26. mars 2006 20:27
> À : ROSSIER Daniel
> Cc : xenomai-core@gna.org
> Objet : Re: [Xenomai-core] Timer IRQ propagation
> 
> ROSSIER Daniel wrote:
> >
> >
> > 2-       When a timer IRQ is received, we understood that the IRQ is
> ack'd and masked by handle_irq()
> and sent to the domains through walk_pipeline() including Linux; but we
> have some doubts about that since
>   the timer ISR of Linux first acknowledges the interrupt, and it seems
> that it acknowledges physically (hw ack);
>   we expected that the acknowledgement would be a virtual ack in the
> Linux domain since the ack has been made
>   previously by handle_irq(). In our case (ARM arch), the ack actually
> corresponds to a mask and therefore the
>   timer IRQ is masked by Linux once it gets,  and we then suspect some
> loss of timer interrupts.
> >
> > have we understood correctly the mechanism? Any idea about this
> behaviour? Is it normal?
> >
> >
> >
> >>Still unclear to me; the ack would be done in the timer ISR; however in
> the (ARM) patch we have,
> ipipe performs a hardware ack; I've seen in the x86 patch that adeos
> makes nothing within __ipipe_ack_system_irq().
> 
> Yes, it does actually, it's even its role as a fast acknowledge Adeos
> handler for incoming hw IRQs. It acks the APIC when the APIC support is
> built-in (I should have made the entire routine conditionally compiled
> on CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC actually). Since __ipipe_ack_system_irq() is
> only called for APIC-controlled IRQs, this routine always touches the hw.
> 
>   I guess the last behaviour is correct, isn't it?
> >
> 
> Looking at Stelian's code in arm/mach-integrator/core.c, I see that
> integrator_timer_interrupt does not acknowledge the timer IRQ, despite
> the misleading comment. It only makes some bookkeeping for TSC emulation
> when some higher domain in the pipeline has stolen the timer (e.g.
> Xenomai). Otherwise, when the Ipipe is compiled in, the regular timer
> tick handler does not touch the hw at all.
> 
> The logic is this one for all Adeos ports:
> 
> - some code intercepts the hw IRQs before they are passed to the regular
> Linux handlers, and feeds __ipipe_handle_irq() with those.
> - __ipipe_handle_irq() calls the fast acknowledge handler for the
> incoming hw IRQ, which ends up being, e.g. __ipipe_ack_system_irq() for
> APIC-controlled IRQs on x86 systems, or __ipipe_ack_timerirq() for the
> timer IRQ in the ARM Integrator/CP port. Some IRQs might need different
> fast ack handlers depending on their respective type.
> - IRQs are virtualized, which means that they are marked for delivery in
> the interrupt log, where they might linger for some time before the
> I-pipe is allowed to dispatch them to the proper handler eventually.
> - At some point in time, Linux ends up being notified of the IRQ, when
> higher priority domains are done with it (e.g. Xenomai). This means that
> the regular handler gets called, but Adeos ports always disable the
> vanilla acknowledge code from such handlers, so that we always have one
> and only one ack cycle for any given IRQ (i.e. the fast ack one from
> __ipipe_handle_irq).
> 
> --
> 
> Philippe.

_______________________________________________
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core

Reply via email to