On Wed, 2023-03-22 at 14:26 +0800, Yipeng Zou wrote:
Thomas, would you be open to taking the patch to tweak the handle_fasteoi_irq在 2023/3/17 19:49, Gowans, James 写道:Hi,
What are your thoughts on this approach compared to your proposal?
I also agree with you, enhance the existing generic handlers is a good
way to go.
Too many generic handlers really confuse developers.
handler? Or is there a different solution to this problem which you prefer?
About CONFIG_GENERIC_PENDING_IRQ is actually some attempts we madeThanks for the patch! I have been trying out CONFIG_GENERIC_PENDING_IRQ too, but
before under the suggestion of Thomas.
This patch is valid for our problem. However, the current config is only
supported on x86, and some code modifications are required on arm.
couldn't get it to work; it seems the IRQ never actually moved. I see from your
patch that we would need to tweak the callbacks and explicitly do the affinity
move in the EOI handler of the chip; the generic code won't do it for us.
This has led to some changes in the original behavior of modifyingSo this means that even if it's safe to change the affinity right now, the
interrupting affinity, from the next interrupt taking effect to the next
to the next interrupt taking effect.
change will actually be delayed until the *next* interrupt? Specifically because
interrupt doesn't have the IRQD_MOVE_PCNTXT state flag isn't set hence
irq_set_affinity_locked won't call irq_try_set_affinity?
JG