On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 01:30:12PM -0500, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>
> On 03/22/2017 01:01 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:37:59 -0500
> > Julia Cartwright <julia@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Which kernel were you testing on, here? From what I can tell, this
> > > should have been fixed with Thomas's commit:
> > >
> > > 2a1d3ab8986d ("genirq: Handle force threading of irqs with primary
> > > and thread handler")
> >
> > Thanks Julia for looking into this. I just looked at the code, and saw
> > that it does very little with the lock held, and was fine with the
> > conversion. But if that interrupt handler should be in a thread, we
> > should see if that's the issue first.
>
>
> It will not be threaded because there are IRQF_ONESHOT used.
>
> ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&pdev->dev, irq,
> sti_mbox_irq_handler,
> sti_mbox_thread_handler,
> IRQF_ONESHOT, mdev->name, mdev);
Indeed. I had skipped over this important detail when I was skimming
through the code.
Thanks for clarifying!
Is IRQF_ONESHOT really necessary for this device? The primary handler
invokes sti_mbox_disable_channel() on the interrupting channel, which I
would hope would acquiesce the pending interrupt at the device-level?
Also, as written there are num_inst reads of STI_IRQ_VAL_OFFSET in the
primary handler, which seems inefficient...(unless of course reading
incurs side effects, here).
Julia
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
