Re: [PATCH] Dynamic tick for x86 version 050602-1

[Tony Lindgren]

* Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> [050607 13:36]:
> Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > --- linux-dev.orig/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c	2005-06-01 17:51:36.000000000 -0700
> > +++ linux-dev/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c	2005-06-01 17:54:32.000000000 -0700
> > [...]
> > @@ -102,6 +103,12 @@ fastcall unsigned int do_IRQ(struct pt_r
> >  		);
> >  	} else
> >  #endif
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NO_IDLE_HZ
> > +	if (dyn_tick->state & (DYN_TICK_ENABLED | DYN_TICK_SKIPPING) && irq != 0)
> > +		dyn_tick->interrupt(irq, NULL, regs);
> > +#endif
> > +
> >  		__do_IRQ(irq, regs);
> 
> Forgive me if I'm being obtuse (again...), but this hunk doesn't look
> like it would work well in the 4K stacks case.  When 4K stacks are being
> used, dyn_tick->interrupt() will only get called in the nested interrupt
> case, when the interrupt stack is already in use.  This change also
> pushes the non-assembly __do_IRQ() call out of the else branch, meaning
> that, when the switch is made to the interrupt stack (most of the time),
> __do_IRQ() will be called twice for the same interrupt.

Good catch as mentioned earlier :)

> It looks to me like you want to put your #ifdef chunk *after* the call
> to __do_IRQ(), unless you have some reason for needing it to happen
> before the regular interrupt handler is invoked.

Time needs to be updated before __do_IRQ() so interrupt handlers have
correct time.

Tony
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/