Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030707AbWKOQ7J (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:59:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030708AbWKOQ7J (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:59:09 -0500 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:55203 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030707AbWKOQ7F (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:59:05 -0500 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Ingo Molnar , Komuro , tglx@linutronix.de, Adrian Bunk , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use delayed disable mode of ioapic edge triggered interrupts References: <1162985578.8335.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061108085235.GT4729@stusta.de> <7813413.118221162987983254.komurojun-mbn@nifty.com> <11940937.327381163162570124.komurojun-mbn@nifty.com> <1163450677.7473.86.camel@earth> <1163492040.28401.76.camel@earth> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:58:12 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Wed, 15 Nov 2006 08:06:13 -0800 (PST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2256 Lines: 52 Linus Torvalds writes: > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> The truth is in practice I don't think it matters because I don't >> think anyone actually disables MSI or hypertransport interrupts. > > Fair enough, at least for a 2.6.19 kind of release timeframe (and that is > what I worry about most, at least right now). > >> At this point I have two questions. >> - What is the easiest path to get us to a stable 2.6.19 where >> everything works? > > If people don't expect HT and MSI interrupts to be masked (and I can well > imagine that), then I think your two-liner patch is good to go. Komuro > seems to have acked it already, and in many ways that's the "minimal > change" for 2.6.19 right now. Well I just doubled checked this assertion. The one driver that uses the hypertransport irqs doesn't call disable_irq. On the msi side at least the forcedeth driver does call disable_irq when in msi mode. I just doubled checked the historical behavior of the msi code and it has never done the delayed disable thing. So not doing it there is not a regression. The MSI case is different. MSI is fundamentally about non-shared interrupts, and interrupts that don't race with your DMAs. So with MSI you don't need a status register read to process the interrupt. In the context of Ingo's patch I don't like the idea of saddling MSI interrupts down with the best in class work arounds for a completely different hardware interrupt model. Although I don't doubt MSI will get it's own set of work arounds as we come to know it better. > I do like Ingo's patch because it seems "safe" (even if I think it might > be a bit _overly_ safe), but it changes semantics enough that I don't like > it for 2.6.19. Even his second version definitely changes semantics for > level-triggered PCI interrupts, even though he fixed ExtInt/i8259 ones. > > So I think I'll go with your patch for now, and we can re-visit Ingo's > thing after 2.6.19. Sounds like a plan. Eric - 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/