[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] genirq: Consider domain hierarchy when checking for IRQCHIP_ONESHOT_SAFE
On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> On 03.08.2018 22:00, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> >
> >> In case of a domain hierarchy we may miss the IRQCHIP_ONESHOT_SAFE
> >> flag because we look at top of the stack only. See also discussion
> >> here:
> >
> > I think you misunderstood:
> >
> >> I think the top most chip is the key, the rest of the hierarchy is
> >> irrelevant because the top most chip is the one which is responsible for
> >> not creating an interrupt storm after the interrupt got acknowledged.
> >
> > The top most chip in the hierarchy, e.g. the PCI MSI one, is the key. If
> > that one is badly implemented and starts to resend after ack/eoi then the
> > interrupt storm happens. The lower layers in the hierarchy down to the
> > vector domain are just transporting what the top level chip does. So it is
> > actively wrong to flag the lower layers.
> >
> > if (desc->irq_data.chip->flags & IRQCHIP_ONESHOT_SAFE)
> >
> > is the correct check as it looks at the topmost irq chip which is the one
> > which initiates the interrupt.
> >
> So you're saying it's correct as it is now in __setup_irq(). Then I don't
> really understand Marc's following comment from earlier in the discussion.
> What else needs to be done if it is correct already?
> "We could also consider extending this to support interrupt
> hierarchies, as __setup_irq() seems only concerned with the top of the
> stack (an IRQ provided by a generic MSI stack and backed by an irqchip
> providing IRQCHIP_ONESHOT_SAFE would go unnoticed)."

I think Marc is wrong there, but I'm not sure what he had in mind.



 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-04 00:13    [W:0.060 / U:0.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site