On Sep 24, 2008, at 4:16 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 11:42 -0500, Milton Miller wrote:

I was trying to understand why the mask and early eoi, but I guess its
to handle other more limited interrupt controllers where the interrupts
stack in hardware instead of software.

No Milton, we must do it that way, because the EOI must be done on the
right CPU even on XICS, or we won't get the CPU priority back properly.

Ben and I had a online chat, and he pointed out I needed to be more specific in saying what I was thinking.

I think the flows we want on xics are:

(non-threaded)
        getirq (implicit source specific mask until eoi)
        handle interrupt
        eoi (implicit cpu priority restore)

(threaded)
        getirq (implicit source specific mask until eoi)
        explicit cpu priority restore
        handle interrupt
        eoi (implicit cpu priority restore to same as explicit level)


cpu takes interrupt, checks soft disabled
if so,
        set hard disabled
else
        call get_irq
        if threaded
                write cppr to restore this cpu irq dispatch state to 
non-interrupt
                mark irq thread as irq pending
        else
                handle interrupt
                eoi (cppr = base)

irq thread will
        handle interrupt
        eoi
        wait for marked pending again

The part Ben did not follow was that the cppr write to base priority is done by the interrupted cpu (like the mask and eoi in the current flow) and only the final eoi (where the mask is in the existing flow) is done on which ever cpu happens to run the irq thread.


(optional) As I was discussing with Paul, when taking an irq when soft-disabled but still hard enabled, it is possible to write the cppr such that it would reject the pending irq and have it be considered for dispatch to another cpu. But it would increase pathlength on both the go-to-hard-disabled and return-from-hard-disabled and the hardware will have some latency as it will likely send it back to the io source until it retrys, so we would only want to do this if the hard-disable period is sufficiently long.

milton

_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

Reply via email to