Linux kernel headers’ organization

This is covered in chapter 10 of Linux Device Drivers, 3rd edition, by Corbet et al. It is available for free online, or you may toss some shekels O'Reilly's way for dead tree or ebook forms. The part relevant to your question begins on page 278 in the first link.

For what it's worth, here is my attempt to paraphrase those three pages, plus other bits I've Googled up:

• When you register a shared IRQ handler, the kernel checks that either:

  a. no other handler exists for that interrupt, or

  b. all of those previously registered also requested interrupt sharing

  If either case applies, it then checks that your dev_id parameter is unique, so that the kernel can differentiate the multiple handlers, e.g. during handler removal.

• When a PCI¹ hardware device raises the IRQ line, the kernel's low-level interrupt handler is called, and it in turn calls all of the registered interrupt handlers, passing each back the dev_id you used to register the handler via request_irq().

  The dev_id value needs to be machine-unique. The common way to do that is to pass a pointer to the per-device struct your driver uses to manage that device. Since this pointer must be within your driver's memory space for it to be useful to the driver, it is ipso facto unique to that driver.²

  If there are multiple drivers registered for a given interrupt, they will all be called when any of the devices raises that shared interrupt line. If it wasn't your driver's device that did this, your driver's interrupt handler will be passed a dev_id value that doesn't belong to it. Your driver's interrupt handler must immediately return when this happens.

  Another case is that your driver is managing multiple devices. The driver's interrupt handler will get one of the dev_id values known to the driver. Your code is supposed to poll each device to find out which one raised the interrupt.

  The example Corbet et al. give is that of a PC parallel port. When it asserts the interrupt line, it also sets the top bit in its first device register. (That is, inb(0x378) & 0x80 == true, assuming standard I/O port numbering.) When your handler detects this, it is supposed to do its work, then clear the IRQ by writing the value read from the I/O port back to the port with the top bit cleared.

  I don't see any reason that particular mechanism is special. A different hardware device could choose a different mechanism. The only important thing is that for a device to allow shared interrupts, it has to have some way for the driver to read the interrupt status of the device, and some way to clear the interrupt. You'll have to read your device's datasheet or programming manual to find out what mechanism your particular device uses.

• When your interrupt handler tells the kernel it handled the interrupt, that doesn't stop the kernel from continuing to call any other handlers registered for that same interrupt. This is unavoidable if you are to share an interrupt line when using level-triggered interrupts.

  Imagine two devices assert the same interrupt line at the same time. (Or at least, so close in time that the kernel doesn't have time to call an interrupt handler to clear the line and thereby see the second assertion as separate.) The kernel must call all handlers for that interrupt line, to give each a chance to query its associated hardware to see if it needs attention. It is quite possible for two different drivers to successfully handle an interrupt within the same pass through the handler list for a given interrupt.

  Because of this, it is imperative that your driver tell the device it is managing to clear its interrupt assertion sometime before the interrupt handler returns. It's not clear to me what happens otherwise. The continuously-asserted interrupt line will either result in the kernel continuously calling the shared interrupt handlers, or it will mask the kernel's ability to see new interrupts so the handlers are never called. Either way, disaster.

Footnotes:

1. I specified PCI above because all of the above assumes level-triggered interrupts, as used in the original PCI spec. ISA used edge-triggered interrupts, which made sharing tricky at best, and possible even then only when supported by the hardware. PCIe uses message-signalled interrupts; the interrupt message contains a unique value the kernel can use to avoid the round-robin guessing game required with PCI interrupt sharing. PCIe may eliminate the very need for interrupt sharing. (I don't know if it actually does, just that it has the potential to.)

2. Linux kernel drivers all share the same memory space, but an unrelated driver isn't supposed to be mucking around in another's memory space. Unless you pass that pointer around, you can be pretty sure another driver isn't going to come up with that same value accidentally on its own.

In the case of Linux, a task (kernel internal idea of a thread; threads can share resources, like memory and open files; some run only inside the kernel) can run in userland, or (it's thread of execution) can transfer into the kernel (and back) to execute a system call. A user thread can be highjacked temporarily to execute an interrupt (but that isn't really that thread running).

That a process is a "system process" or a regular user process is completely irrelevant in Unix, they are handled just the same. In Linux case, some tasks run in-kernel to handle miscellaneous jobs. They are kernel jobs, not "system processes" however.

One big caveat: Text books on complex software products (compilers and operating systems are particularly egregious examples) tend to explain simplistic algorithms (often ones that haven't been used in earnest for half a century), because real world machines and user requirements are much too complex to be handled in some way that can be described in a structured, simple way. Much of a compiler is ad-hoc tweaks (particularly in the area of code optimization, the transformations are mostly the subset of possibilities that show up in practical use). In the case of Linux, most of the code is device drivers (mentioned in passing as device-dependent in operating system texts), and of this code a hefty slice is handling misbehaving devices, which do not comply to their own specifications, or which behave differently between versions of "the same device". Often what is explained in minute detail is just the segment of the job that can be reduced to some nice theory, leaving the messy, irregular part (almost) completely out. For instance, Cris Fraser and David Hanson in their book describing the LCC compiler state that typical compiler texts contain mostly explanations on lexical analysis and parsing, and very little on code generation. Those tasks are some 5% of the code of their (engineered to be simple!) compiler, and had negligible error rate. The complex part of the compiler is just not covered in standard texts.