On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 07:16 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:

On 05/18/2010 06:25 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 15:22 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:

quoted

On 05/18/2010 02:52 PM, Brian King wrote:

quoted

Is IRQF_NODELAY something specific to the RT kernel? I don't see it in mainline...

Yes, it basically says "don't make this handler threaded".

That is a good fix for EHEA, but the threaded handling is still broken
for anything else that is edge triggered isn't it?

No, I don't believe so. Edge triggered interrupts that are reported as 
edge triggered interrupts will use the edge handler (which was the 
approach Sebastien took to make this work back in 2008). Since XICS 
presents all interrupts as Level Triggered, they use the fasteoi path.

But that's the point, no interrupts on XICS are reported as edge, even
if they are actually edge somewhere deep in the hardware. I don't think
we have any reliable way to determine what is what.

quoted

The result of the discussion about two years ago on this was that we
needed a custom flow handler for XICS on RT.

I'm still not clear on why the ultimate solution wasn't to have XICS 
report edge triggered as edge triggered. Probably some complexity of the 
entire power stack that I am ignorant of.

I'm not really sure either, but I think it's a case of a leaky
abstraction on the part of the hypervisor. Edge interrupts behave as
level as long as you handle the irq before EOI, but if you mask they
don't. But Milton's the expert on that.

quoted

Apart from the issue of loosing interrupts there is also the fact that
masking on the XICS requires an RTAS call which takes a global lock.

Right, one of may reasons why we felt this was the right fix. The other 
is that there is no real additional overhead in running this as 
non-threaded since the receive handler is so short (just napi_schedule()).

True. It's not a fix in general though. I'm worried that we're going to
see the exact same bug for MSI(-X) interrupts.

cheers