From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc: <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: question about irq_enter()/irq_exit() calling policy
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:07:49 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9c334b42-6b22-397f-93f6-e19e9163a17c@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161130102134.GB14217@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
Hi Russell,
On 11/30/2016 04:21 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 05:47:12PM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>> 2) Should these function be called for each processed irq?
>>
>>
>> HW IRQ:
>> switch (IRQ mode)
>> ...
>> while (irq = get_pending_irq()) {
>> ...
>> irq_enter()
>> handle(irq) - execute hw_irq_hadler
>> irq_exit()
>> }
>> ...
>> switch
>
> We tend to do (2) as a general rule, which isn't much different from what
> other architectures do - even if they have a method to directly enter
> through vectors (eg, x86) the effect of two pending interrupts is that one
> will run after each other, and there will be an intervening exit -> entry.
>
> In the case of ARM CPUs, if the interrupt signal is active, you vector
> back to the interrupt handler as soon as you exit back to the parent
> context without executing any parent context instructions.
>
> So, we have the choice of going through all the IRQ entry code, processing
> one interrupt, and returning only to then re-vector back through the IRQ
> entry code, or we can process all the pending IRQs that we can see at that
> time.
>
> The former method wastes all the CPU cycles getting from the parent context
> to the IRQ context for each and every interrupt.
>
Thanks a lot for your detailed explanation.
When I've asked this question my intention was to understand possibility of calling
irq_enter()/irq_exit() only once for the case (2), like:
HW IRQ:
switch (IRQ mode)
...
irq_enter()
while (irq = get_pending_irq()) {
...
handle(irq) - execute hw_irq_hadler
}
irq_exit()
...
switch
--
regards,
-grygorii
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-30 17:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-29 23:47 Grygorii Strashko
2016-11-30 10:21 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-11-30 17:07 ` Grygorii Strashko [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=9c334b42-6b22-397f-93f6-e19e9163a17c@ti.com \
--to=grygorii.strashko@ti.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
/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®