Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip: omap-intc: add support for spurious irq
 handling
To: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
References: <0958510b69cf679fef64ccf535b1cdc43c5ffccc.1449572109.git.nsekhar@ti.com>
 <87mvtlm4ts.fsf@saruman.tx.rr.com> <56699762.1030501@ti.com>
CC: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
        Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
From: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>
Message-ID: <56702341.50309@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:57:13 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56699762.1030501@ti.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2216
Lines: 58

On Thursday 10 December 2015 08:46 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> Hi Felipe,
> 
> On Tuesday 08 December 2015 07:15 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com> writes:
> 
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * A spurious IRQ can result if interrupt that triggered the
>>> +	 * sorting is no longer active during the sorting (10 INTC
>>> +	 * functional clock cycles after interrupt assertion). Or a
>>> +	 * change in interrupt mask affected the result during sorting
>>> +	 * time. There is no special handling required except ignoring
>>> +	 * the SIR register value just read and retrying.
>>> +	 * See section 6.2.5 of AM335x TRM Literature Number: SPRUH73K
>>> +	 *
>>> +	 * Many a times, a spurious interrupt situation has been fixed
>>> +	 * by adding a flush for the posted write acking the IRQ in
>>> +	 * the device driver. Typically, this is going be the device
>>> +	 * driver whose interrupt was handled just before the spurious
>>> +	 * IRQ occurred. Pay attention to those device drivers if you
>>> +	 * run into hitting the spurious IRQ condition below.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	if ((irqnr & SPURIOUSIRQ_MASK) == SPURIOUSIRQ_MASK) {
>>
>> sounds like unlikely() wouldn't hurt here.
> 
> I can add, but looks like it does not make a big difference. See below.
> 
>>
>>> +		pr_err_once("%s: spurious irq!\n", __func__);
>>> +		irq_err_count++;
>>> +		omap_ack_irq(NULL);
>>> +		return;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>>  	irqnr &= ACTIVEIRQ_MASK;
>>> -	WARN_ONCE(!irqnr, "Spurious IRQ ?\n");
>>>  	handle_domain_irq(domain, irqnr, regs);
>>
>> care to run kernel function profiler against omap_intc_handle_irq()
>> before and after this patch ?
> 
> Before this patch I see average running time time of 34us. That
> increases to 37.8us after this patch. With unlikely() the number I got
> was 37.4us. So the benefit with unlikely() is in the noise range.
> 
> This was using AM335x EVM at 720 MHz.

Just sent a v3 with unlikely() and profiling information added to commit
message.

Thanks,
Sekhar
--
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/