On 2016-10-06 20:15:16 [-0700], Joel Fernandes wrote: > Hi Sebastian, Hi Joel, > > > So basically my questions are: > > > 1. Does hard in hard irq mean hardware interrupt or does it imply > > > interrupt context? > > > > I would drop that hard part. It is an interrupt handler. It then can be > > either threaded or not and it can be always threaded or sometimes. > > hard is used to distinguish this kind of interrupts from the soft-irqs. > > > > But with threaded interrupts, you do have a handler that wakes up the > thread. In this case there are 2 handlers, one handler executes in > interrupt context and wakes up the thread, and the other runs in the > thread. In this case, the term "interrupt handler" is confusing since > it isn't clear which handler we're referring to. "hard interrupt > handler" is also confusing - since if hard means "hardware", then > technically the thread is also a "hard interrupt handler" since the > interrupt line is masked (forced threaded interrupts are also one > shot) till the thread clears the interrupt reason. so what is your point? You still have a primary handler and a secondary / threaded handler. In -RT (!RT, too but I am not 100% sure) we can have three. Now I leave it to your research to figure out when this might happen :) > Thanks, > Joel Sebastian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
