* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

[...]
quoted text
>
> Now, it's also true that our IRQ infrastructure handlers _could_ be smarter, 
> and make the whole problem less likely to happen.
> 
> In particular, it's probably true that especially on modern hardware with 
> multiple cores, and especially when you do _not_ have irq sharing (which is 
> the common case these days for things like network drivers that can use 
> MSI), we really would be better off having the irq disabled over the whole 
> thing, and on some interrupt controllers it might even be worth it to do the 
> old optimization of not masking-and-acking, but just acking.

Yes.

quoted text
> But see above. This is _not_ something that a driver can do any more. They 
> don't know whether the interrupt might end up being shared. Just blindly 
> setting IRAF_DISABLED in a driver is _not_ the answer. But being smarter in 
> the generic irq handler code might work.
> 
> And then, what we could do, is to mark the drivers that absolutely _must_ be 
> able to nest specially. Like the IDE driver when in PIO mode. Or maybe the 
> SCSI drivers, if they still depend on that timer interrupt happening while 
> they are busy.

I think the patch as posted solves a real problem, but also perpetuates a bad 
situation.

At minimum we should print a (one-time) warning that some badness occured. 
That would push us either in the direction of improving drivers, or towards 
improving the generic code.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
unsubscribe notice
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/