Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 19 Oct 2018 17:26:29 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Mathias Duckeck <m.duckeck@kunbus.de>,
        Akshay Bhat <akshay.bhat@timesys.com>,
        Casey Fitzpatrick <casey.fitzpatrick@timesys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq: Fix race on spurious interrupt detection
In-Reply-To: <20181019152307.62t6al6ney5ofo36@wunner.de>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1810191725220.6075@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <1dfd8bbd16163940648045495e3e9698e63b50ad.1539867047.git.lukas@wunner.de> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1810191554030.6075@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20181019152307.62t6al6ney5ofo36@wunner.de>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 04:31:30PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I doubt that this can happen in reality, so I'd rather reword that
> > paragraph slightly:
> > 
> >   In theory high CPU load and in the presence of higher priority tasks, the
> >   number of incorrectly detected spurious interrupts might increase beyond
> >   the 99,900 threshold and cause disablement of the interrupt.
> > 
> >   In practice it just increments the spurious interrupt count. But that can
> >   cause people to waste time investigating it over and over.
> > 
> > Hmm?
> 
> Sure, fine by me.  Would you prefer me to resend with that change or
> can you fold it in when applying?

I'll fold it. No problem.

> FWIW I did manage to reach the 99,900 threshold once because I had
> added copious amounts of printk() to the hi3110 IRQ thread to debug
> another issue.  But I never experienced that without those printk()'s.

Cute.

Thanks

	tglx