> On Aug 4, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
> Re,
>
> Junling Ma, le dim. 02 août 2020 21:07:00 -0700, a ecrit:
>> +struct pt_regs;
>> +extern int request_irq (unsigned int irq, void (*handler) (int, void *,
>> struct pt_regs *),
>> + unsigned long flags, const char *devic
> On Aug 4, 2020, at 5:30 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
> Junling Ma, le mar. 04 août 2020 17:08:03 -0700, a ecrit:
static user_intr_t *
search_intr (struct irqdev *dev, ipc_port_t dst_port)
{
user_intr_t *e;
- queue_iterate (dev->intr_queue, e, user_intr_t *, chain)
>>>
Ah, I actually reviewed the all-in-one patch. Put please proceed with
the separate patches, that'll be much more testable, and all my comments
probably apply just the same.
Samuel
Junling Ma, le mar. 04 août 2020 17:11:06 -0700, a ecrit:
> In the next patch, we disallow deliver_user_intr from touching the queue, so
> we do not need to lock it.
We don't want separate patch to depend on each other. Each patch should
by its own just *work* so we can test all of them one after
Junling Ma, le mar. 04 août 2020 17:08:03 -0700, a ecrit:
> >> static user_intr_t *
> >> search_intr (struct irqdev *dev, ipc_port_t dst_port)
> >> {
> >> user_intr_t *e;
> >> - queue_iterate (dev->intr_queue, e, user_intr_t *, chain)
> >> + simple_lock(&dev->lock);
> >> + queue_iterate (&dev-
Samuel Thibault, le mer. 05 août 2020 02:24:20 +0200, a ecrit:
> > user_intr_t *
> > insert_intr_entry (struct irqdev *dev, int id, ipc_port_t dst_port)
> > {
> [...]
> > + /* we do not need to disable irq here, because the irq handler does not
> > touch the queue now. */
> ??? How so?
Ah, yo
Re,
Junling Ma, le dim. 02 août 2020 21:07:00 -0700, a ecrit:
> +struct pt_regs;
> +extern int request_irq (unsigned int irq, void (*handler) (int, void *,
> struct pt_regs *),
> + unsigned long flags, const char *device, void *dev_id);
> +extern void free_irq (unsigned int irq, void *de
In the next patch, we disallow deliver_user_intr from touching the queue, so we
do not need to lock it. In fact, by doing that, we prevent interrupts from
pulling the rug under our feet, so there is no need to do splhigh/splx in
irq_acknowledge and intr_thread.
Junling
> On Aug 4, 2020, at 4:5
Hi Samual,
> On Aug 4, 2020, at 4:51 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
> Junling Ma, le dim. 02 août 2020 21:04:24 -0700, a ecrit:
>> -struct irqdev irqtab = {
>> - "irq", irq_eoi, &main_intr_queue, 0,
>> - {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15},
>> -};
>> +struct irqdev irqtab;
>>
Oh, btw, in queue_intr you also need to take the simple_lock which
modifying the entry values.
Samuel
Junling Ma, le dim. 02 août 2020 21:04:24 -0700, a ecrit:
> -struct irqdev irqtab = {
> - "irq", irq_eoi, &main_intr_queue, 0,
> - {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15},
> -};
> +struct irqdev irqtab;
> +
> +void irq_init()
> +{
> + irqtab.name = "irq";
> + irqtab.irqdev_ack
In summary, there is no easy way for device_* interface to know who called. So
registering a notification port is a simple and sane way, We only need to move
device_intr_register/ack to irq_register/ack into something like irq.defs, so
that other devices are freed from having to implement these
Junling Ma, le mar. 04 août 2020 14:47:09 -0700, a ecrit:
> The tot_num_intr field is a count of how many deliverable interrupts across
> all lines. When we move
> to the scheme of blocking read for request and write for acking, it is
> possible that an interrupt
> can happen during a small perio
Hi Jess,
> On Aug 4, 2020, at 3:22 PM, Jessica Clarke wrote:
>
> On 4 Aug 2020, at 22:47, Junling Ma wrote:
>>
>> The tot_num_intr field is a count of how many deliverable interrupts across
>> all lines. When we move
>> to the scheme of blocking read for request and write for acking, it is
>
Junling Ma, le mar. 04 août 2020 15:16:39 -0700, a ecrit:
> In the read/write irq scheme, a program may open multiple irq devices. When
> wrting (acking), we
> need to find the user_intr_t that both points to the device port and has the
> correct interrupt.
> Thus the search_intr function need to
On 4 Aug 2020, at 22:47, Junling Ma wrote:
>
> The tot_num_intr field is a count of how many deliverable interrupts across
> all lines. When we move
> to the scheme of blocking read for request and write for acking, it is
> possible that an interrupt
> can happen during a small period that the
In the read/write irq scheme, a program may open multiple irq devices. When
wrting (acking), we
need to find the user_intr_t that both points to the device port and has the
correct interrupt.
Thus the search_intr function need to match the interrupt id. For the
device_intr_ack method,
the id p
The tot_num_intr field is a count of how many deliverable interrupts across all
lines. When we move
to the scheme of blocking read for request and write for acking, it is possible
that an interrupt
can happen during a small period that the interrupt is acked, but the read has
not happended yet.
linux irq: remove suer_intr from linux_action
---
linux/dev/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c | 10 --
1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/linux/dev/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c b/linux/dev/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c
index aee10462..de7d6c6a 100644
--- a/linux/dev/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c
+++ b/linux/
irqdev: make deliver_user_intr a linux irq handler
---
device/intr.c| 30 ++-
device/intr.h| 1 -
linux/dev/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c | 51 +---
3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
diff --git a/devic
This sets up the stage for making deliver_user_intr a linux irq handler, which
does not have a
return value. So we make deliver_user_intr return void, and move the check for
dead notification
port into intr_thread. Now deliver_user_intr does not touch main_intr_queue,
and only the server
thread
21 matches
Mail list logo
