From: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
To: mingo@redhat.com, dahlmann.thomas@arcor.de
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org,
Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH] Delete redundant IRQ_DISABLED check in irq_thread
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:43:49 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1247820229-4983-1-git-send-email-21cnbao@gmail.com> (raw)
Signed-off-by: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
I think it is completely redundant to check IRQ_DISABLED to decide whether thread_fn will be called.
At first, the irq_thread is waken up by HARDIRQ handler, if IRQ_DISABLED is true, HARDIRQ will have no chance to run, then irq_thread will not run. So there is only a situation that both HARDIRQ can run and IRQ_DISABLED is set.
The case is that the flag is set in the interval of HARDIRQ enter and irq_thread is scheduled to run. I think there is nobody which is interested to disable irq in the interval except HARDIRQ handler itself. Then that causes the second problem I will explain.
Secondly, checking the flag causes some problems in fact. We often call disable_irq_nosync to diable irq in HARDIRQ to avoid flooding irq to follow. But the disable_irq_nosync will set IRQ_DISABLED flag, then that will prevent the execution of thread_fn. That's not the original idea to call disable_irq_nosync in HARDIRQ.
So I guess deleting the check is maybe better and more compact.
-Barry
---
kernel/irq/manage.c | 17 +----------------
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c
index 50da676..ff4e05d 100644
--- a/kernel/irq/manage.c
+++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c
@@ -460,22 +460,7 @@ static int irq_thread(void *data)
atomic_inc(&desc->threads_active);
- spin_lock_irq(&desc->lock);
- if (unlikely(desc->status & IRQ_DISABLED)) {
- /*
- * CHECKME: We might need a dedicated
- * IRQ_THREAD_PENDING flag here, which
- * retriggers the thread in check_irq_resend()
- * but AFAICT IRQ_PENDING should be fine as it
- * retriggers the interrupt itself --- tglx
- */
- desc->status |= IRQ_PENDING;
- spin_unlock_irq(&desc->lock);
- } else {
- spin_unlock_irq(&desc->lock);
-
- action->thread_fn(action->irq, action->dev_id);
- }
+ action->thread_fn(action->irq, action->dev_id);
wake = atomic_dec_and_test(&desc->threads_active);
--
1.5.6.3
next reply other threads:[~2009-07-17 8:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-17 8:43 Barry Song [this message]
2009-07-17 14:13 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-07-17 14:58 ` Barry Song
2009-07-17 19:01 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-07-17 23:26 ` Barry Song
2009-07-18 9:41 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-07-18 14:11 ` Barry Song
2009-07-20 3:52 ` Barry Song
2009-07-20 10:09 ` Thomas Gleixner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1247820229-4983-1-git-send-email-21cnbao@gmail.com \
--to=21cnbao@gmail.com \
--cc=dahlmann.thomas@arcor.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®