Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:21:40 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
        Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip/jcore: fix lost per-cpu interrupts
Message-ID: <20161011152140.GH19318@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
References: <41fc74d0bdea4c0efc269150b78d72b2b26cb38c.1475992312.git.dalias@libc.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610091301390.5222@nanos>
 <20161009144715.GB19318@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610092121460.7166@nanos>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610092121460.7166@nanos>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2158
Lines: 44

On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 09:23:58PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2016, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 01:03:10PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > My preference would just be to keep the branch, but with your improved
> > version that doesn't need a function call:
> > 
> > 	irqd_is_per_cpu(irq_desc_get_irq_data(desc))
> >
> > While there is some overhead testing this condition every time, I can
> > probably come up with several better places to look for a ~10 cycle
> > improvement in the irq code path without imposing new requirements on
> > the DT bindings.
> 
> Fair enough. Your call.
>  
> > As noted in my followup to the clocksource stall thread, there's also
> > a possibility that it might make sense to consider the current
> > behavior of having non-percpu irqs bound to a particular cpu as part
> > of what's required by the compatible tag, in which case
> > handle_percpu_irq or something similar/equivalent might be suitable
> > for both the percpu and non-percpu cases. I don't understand the irq
> > subsystem well enough to insist on that but I think it's worth
> > consideration since it looks like it would improve performance of
> > non-percpu interrupts a bit.
> 
> Well, you can use handle_percpu_irq() for your device interrupts if you
> guarantee at the hardware level that there is no reentrancy. Once you make
> the hardware capable of delivering them on either core the picture changes.

One more concern here -- I see that handle_simple_irq is handling the
soft-disable / IRQS_PENDING flag behavior, and irq_check_poll stuff
that's perhaps important too. Since soft-disable is all we have
(there's no hard-disable of interrupts), is this a problem? In other
words, can drivers have an expectation of not receiving interrupts
when the irq is disabled? I would think anything compatible with irq
sharing can't have such an expectation, but perhaps the kernel needs
disabling internally for synchronization at module-unload time or
similar cases?

If you think any of these things are problems I'll switch back to the
conditional version rather than using handle_percpu_irq for
everything.

Rich