Subject: Re: i386 interrupt counters
To: Noriyuki Soda <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Chris G Demetriou <Chris_G_Demetriou@ux2.sp.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 08/11/1996 15:23:51
> >>>>> On Sun, 11 Aug 1996 01:10:55 -0400 (EDT),
> Michael Graff <email@example.com> said:
> > I added in i386 interrupt counters for both the slow and fast interrupt
> > hooks in the kernel. Right now I have the "slow" ones called "intr*"
> > and the fast ones called "fast*" but I am open to suggestions on other
> > names.
> I think it is better to use driver name like "com0" instead of
> "intr4". Of course, this requires to handle return value of interrupt
> handler to cope with shared irq.
Uh, dealing with the return value is completely independent of
counting the interrupts.
with 'evcnt' and per-device interrupt counting, the _driver_, not the
bus, ends up counting the interrupts, and the bus code doesn't know
anything (or at least 'much') about interrupt counting at all.
However, as noted in my previous mail, i think this is the wrong way
to go, especially on busses which can support interrupt counting.
If the interrupt lines are a shared bus resource, rather than a per
device/slot resource, then it really makes more sense to be doing the
counting at the bus level.