From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question about IRQ_PENDING/IRQ_REPLAY
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:36:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <19350127060824.22815@smtp.wanadoo.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10103030954060.17574-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10103030954060.17574-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
>In particular, if an edge-triggered interrupt comes in on an x86 IO-APIC
>while that interrupt is disabled, enabling the interrupt will have caused
>that irq to get dropped. And if it gets dropped, it will never ever happen
>again: the interrupt line is now active, and there will never be another
>edge again.
Ok, I see. We have a different issue with the old Apple IRQ controller that
can lose interrupts if they are active when re-enabled. We currently rely
on a hack to work aroud this that may re-send interrupts, but that involves
hacking into __sti() to check for lost interrupts, which is bad.
Basically, even a level interrupt, if active while re-enabled, will not be
sent by the pic to the CPU, and so further interrupts will be blocked too.
We have some code in enable_irq() that can detect this case, but re-triggering
the interrupt is not really simple and requires the __sti() hack for now.
I beleive we may have a way to re-trigger the interrupt without having to
hack __sti() by using a fake timer interrupt. I'll look into this, but in
that case, the code can be mostly self-contained in enable_irq, we will
probably not need to play with IRQ_PENDING & IRQ_REPLAY flag at all.
>> I'd be glad if you could take the time to enlighten me about this as I'm
>> trying to make the PPC code as close as the i386, according to your
>> comment stating that it would be generic in 2.5, and I don't like having
>> code I don't fully understand ;)
>
>You likely don't have this problem at all. Most sane interrupt controllers
>are level-triggered, and won't show the problem. And others (like the
>i8259) will see a disabled->enabled transition as an edge if the interrupt
>is active (ie they have the edge-detection logic _after_ the disable
>logic), and again won't have this problem.
Well, Apple now uses OpenPICs, but all slightly older macs had a home-made
Apple controller that had the above issue :( In fact, it can happpen with
both and and level interrupts for us.
Regards,
Ben.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-03-04 12:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-03-03 7:20 Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2001-03-03 18:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-03-03 21:48 ` Cort Dougan
2001-03-04 21:06 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2001-03-05 6:07 ` Cort Dougan
2001-03-05 9:48 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2001-03-05 10:00 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2001-03-05 18:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-03-05 21:00 ` Cort Dougan
2001-03-05 21:47 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2001-03-05 21:39 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2001-03-04 12:36 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
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=19350127060824.22815@smtp.wanadoo.fr \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
/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®