RE: [PATCH] genirq: for edge interrupt IRQS_ONESHOT support withirq thread

[Liu, Chuansheng]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: anish kumar [mailto:anish198519851985@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 11:25 PM
> To: Liu, Chuansheng
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] genirq: for edge interrupt IRQS_ONESHOT support with irq
> thread
> 
> On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 14:57 +0000, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
> > > On SMP an interrupt which is raised after the ack() again before the
> > > handler finishes, can invoke another delivery on a different CPU,
> > > which then sees the IRQ_INPROGESS flag, masks it and flags it
> > > PENDING. When the primary handler on the first CPU returns, it sees
> > > the PENDING flag, unmasks and invokes the handler another time.
> > In this case, when IRQ_INPROGRESS flag is set, on another CPU, it will
> > mask and ack it, if before the primary handler on the first CPU returns,
> > the edge interrupt is raised again, it will be lost, right?
> Why will the interrupt be raised again?Is not it masked?I read tglx
I means because it is masked, if at this time device issues edge irq,
It will not be delivered and lost.

> statement as this:if the interrupt is being handled on one core, then
> the delivery of new interrupt can be on the second core and in that case
> it will see IRQ_INPROGRESS flag and it will *mask* it and set the flag
> as pending.So there is no chance of any new interrupt.
> > So I think set PENDING just confirm one time, it just depends on primary
> handler
> > execution time and irq frequency.
> > --
> > 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/
> 

N‹§²æìr¸›yúèšØb²X¬¶ÇvØ^–)Þ{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±‘êçzX§¶›¡Ü}©ž²ÆzÚ&j:+v‰¨¾«‘êçzZ+€Ê+zf£¢·hšˆ§~†­†Ûiÿûàz¹®w¥¢¸?™¨è­Ú&¢)ßf”ù^jÇy§m…á@A«a¶Úÿ0¶ìh®å’i