Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:11:35 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH, v2] |
| |
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.
> 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
| |