Re: [PATCH, v2]
From: Thomas Gleixner <hidden>
Date: 2014-07-28 12:11:52
Also in:
lkml
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, July 27, 2014 05:53:07 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
irqreturn_t
+do_irqaction(struct irq_desc *desc, struct irqaction *action,
+ unsigned int irq, void *dev_id)
+{
+ irqreturn_t ret;
+
+ if (unlikely((desc->istate & IRQS_SHARED_SUSPENDED) &&
+ !(action->flags & IRQF_NO_SUSPEND)))
+ return IRQ_NONE;I really want to avoid that conditional. We burden it on every interrupt just to deal with this nonsense. A simple solution for this is to add irq_desc::action_suspended and move the shared actions which are not flagged NO_SUSPEND over and bring them back on resume.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Index: linux-pm/kernel/irq/spurious.c ===================================================================--- linux-pm.orig/kernel/irq/spurious.c +++ linux-pm/kernel/irq/spurious.c@@ -275,6 +275,8 @@ try_misrouted_irq(unsigned int irq, stru void note_interrupt(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc, irqreturn_t action_ret) { + int misrouted; + if (desc->istate & IRQS_POLL_INPROGRESS || irq_settings_is_polled(desc)) return;@@ -384,6 +386,9 @@ void note_interrupt(unsigned int irq, st } } + misrouted = unlikely(try_misrouted_irq(irq, desc, action_ret)) ? + misrouted_irq(irq) : 0;
If the system is suspended, why would we try misrouted irqs at all? All non wakeup irqs are disabled, so we just spend a gazillion of cycles for nothing. Thanks, tglx