On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 02:07:37PM -0500, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 15:53 +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > > > I've thought e.g. about "fasteoi" for this "Virtual Wire" timer for > > i386: I hope it's OK, but since is it any problem to add some comment > > here, why it's OK with resending here (with POWERPC it's easier to > > think it's something special, but here we have to similar things in > > the same file)?
Sorry! Of course, there is something about edge in a lapic_chip declaration, so this (plus some knowledge of the subject) should be enough, but I was a little surprised that x86_64 uses handle_edge_irq for probably(?) the same thing. > > To be totally fair, there shouldn't be a problem with spurrious > re-sends, I'm not sure what problems some chipsets are having there, > though it may be related to the method used for re-sending. On ppc, we > use the soft method I think everywhere anyway. IMHO, this method is very doubtful if the whole system isn't adapted for this: e.g. in networking code softirqs are blocked very often, so such resended irq could be really late. > > I use re-sending on cell with fasteoi for the on-die top-level PIC > because while it does have a HW priority handling, it also doesn't have > a HW mask. Thus I just "drop" IRQs that are masked and resend (it's edge > messages). So, if I got this right, it looks a bit easier, since you can resend with the same type as not masked ones (fasteoi-edge?!), I guess. Regards, Jarek P. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
