Re: Get rid of IRQF_DISABLED - (was [PATCH] genirq: warn aboutIRQF_SHARED|IRQF_DISABLED)

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 22:31 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> > Are the perf events on power generally coming through the standard irq
> > handler code path and/or sensitive to local_irq_disable() ?
> 
> They are in HW yes. On ppc64, we do soft-disabling, which mean that we
> can still get the perf events within a local_irq_disable() region
> provided we don't get another interrupt within that region that forces
> us to hard disable so it would make the problem less bad I suppose.
> 
> > > I would suggest we timestamp the handlers in the core btw and warn
> > if
> > > they take too long so we get a chance to track down the bad guys.
> > 
> > The hassle is to find a time which we think is appropriate as a
> > threshold which is of course depending on the cpu power of a
> > system. Also I wonder whether we'd need to make such a warning thing
> > aware of irq nesting.
> 
> But if we always disable interrupts while running the handlers, we don't
> nest right ?

Right, in that case we do not and it's easy to instrument.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/