lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Dynamic tick for x86 version 050602-1
From
Date
Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:

> --- linux-dev.orig/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c 2005-06-01 17:51:36.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux-dev/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c 2005-06-01 17:54:32.000000000 -0700
> [...]
> @@ -102,6 +103,12 @@ fastcall unsigned int do_IRQ(struct pt_r
> );
> } else
> #endif
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NO_IDLE_HZ
> + if (dyn_tick->state & (DYN_TICK_ENABLED | DYN_TICK_SKIPPING) && irq != 0)
> + dyn_tick->interrupt(irq, NULL, regs);
> +#endif
> +
> __do_IRQ(irq, regs);

Forgive me if I'm being obtuse (again...), but this hunk doesn't look
like it would work well in the 4K stacks case. When 4K stacks are being
used, dyn_tick->interrupt() will only get called in the nested interrupt
case, when the interrupt stack is already in use. This change also
pushes the non-assembly __do_IRQ() call out of the else branch, meaning
that, when the switch is made to the interrupt stack (most of the time),
__do_IRQ() will be called twice for the same interrupt.

It looks to me like you want to put your #ifdef chunk *after* the call
to __do_IRQ(), unless you have some reason for needing it to happen
before the regular interrupt handler is invoked.

What am I missing?

jon

Jonathan Corbet
Executive editor, LWN.net
corbet@lwn.net
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-06-07 22:41    [W:0.091 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site