On 2021-10-29 14:41:53 [+0100], John Garry wrote: > > @@ -713,9 +752,22 @@ static irqreturn_t be_isr_msix(int irq, void *dev_id) > > phba = pbe_eq->phba; > > /* disable interrupt till iopoll completes */ > > hwi_ring_eq_db(phba, eq->id, 1, 0, 0, 1); > > - irq_poll_sched(&pbe_eq->iopoll); > > - return IRQ_HANDLED; > > + return IRQ_WAKE_THREAD; > > +} > > + > > @@ -819,9 +873,10 @@ static int beiscsi_init_irqs(struct beiscsi_hba *phba) > > goto free_msix_irqs; > > } > > - ret = request_irq(pci_irq_vector(pcidev, i), > > - be_isr_msix, 0, phba->msi_name[i], > > - &phwi_context->be_eq[i]); > > + ret = request_threaded_irq(pci_irq_vector(pcidev, i), > > + be_isr_msix, be_isr_misx_th, > > + 0, phba->msi_name[i], > > + &phwi_context->be_eq[i]); > > Would it be sensible to set ONESHOT flag here? I assume that we don't want > the hard irq handler firing continuously while we poll completions in the > threaded handler. That's my understanding of how ONESHOT should or would > work... they currently seem to manually disable in be_isr_msix() -> > hwi_ring_eq_db() for the same purpose, I guess. We could. My understanding of hwi_ring_eq_db() of is that it disables the interrupt from on HW level. This is needed _already_ in order to continue to process the request later in softirq without the interrupt constantly firing. For the MSI interrupts this could be replaced "easily" and leaving the primary handler empty. However the non-MSI interrupts may be shared and here all handlers need the ONESHOT which may not be the case. > Thanks, > John Sebastian
