Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753060AbbLCTZg (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:25:36 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:62884 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751898AbbLCTZf (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:25:35 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,378,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="833734586" Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 11:11:25 -0800 From: Yunhong Jiang To: Thomas Gleixner , okuno.kohji@jp.panasonic.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Can we conditionally force threading irq with primary and thread handler? Message-ID: <20151203191125.GA8945@jnakajim-build> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 908 Lines: 22 Hi, Thomas On Commit 2a1d3ab8986d1b2 ("genirq: Handle force threading of irqs with primary and thread handler"), even if the caller of request_threaded_irq() provides a primary handler, that primary handler will be invoked in thread context. This may cause some latency issue for high real time requirement. I checked the discussion on https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/19/372 with Okuno and seems we need this change only if the irq is shared, otherwise, we can still use Okuno's mechanism, am I right? Do you think it's ok to force the primary handler for shared IRQ, otherwise, clear the IRQF_ONESHOT? If yes, I will cook a patch for it. Thanks --jyh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/