From: will.deacon@arm•com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 3/5] arm_pmu: acpi: check for mismatched PPIs
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 18:43:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171211184337.GF3275@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171211180830.firkcy3jptw3bou3@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 06:08:31PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 05:37:07PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 02:12:37PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > The arm_pmu platform code explicitly checks for mismatched PPIs at probe
> > > time, while the ACPI code leaves this to the core code. Future
> > > refactoring will make this difficult for the core code to check, so
> > > let's have the ACPI code check this explicitly.
> > >
> > > As before, upon a failure we'll continue on without an interrupt. Ho
> > > hum.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm•com>
> > > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm•com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c | 16 ++++------------
> > > drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > > 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> > > index 3d6d4c5f2356..e0242103d904 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> > > @@ -557,18 +557,10 @@ int armpmu_request_irq(struct arm_pmu *armpmu, int cpu)
> > > if (!irq)
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > - if (irq_is_percpu_devid(irq) && cpumask_empty(&armpmu->active_irqs)) {
> > > - err = request_percpu_irq(irq, handler, "arm-pmu",
> > > - &hw_events->percpu_pmu);
> > > - } else if (irq_is_percpu_devid(irq)) {
> > > - int other_cpu = cpumask_first(&armpmu->active_irqs);
> > > - int other_irq = per_cpu(hw_events->irq, other_cpu);
> > > -
> > > - if (irq != other_irq) {
> > > - pr_warn("mismatched PPIs detected.\n");
> > > - err = -EINVAL;
> > > - goto err_out;
> > > - }
> > > + if (irq_is_percpu_devid(irq)) {
> > > + if (cpumask_empty(&armpmu->active_irqs))
> >
> > Why not leave this as before, with a '&&' operator?
>
> Because then we'd fall into the else case (for SPIs), were the
> active_irqs mask empty.
>
> Previously, that would have been caught by the irq_is_percpu_devid(irq)
> case that got removed.
>
> I can instead make this:
>
> if (irq_is_percpu_devid(irq) && cpumask_empty(&armpmu->active_irqs)) {
> err = request_percpu_irq(irq, handler, "arm-pmu",
> &hw_events->percpu_pmu);
> } else if (irq_is_percpu_devid(irq)) {
> /* nothing to do */
> } else {
> < SPI case >
> }
>
> ... but that seemed more painful to read.
Yeah, that's crazy :)
How about:
if (!irq_is_percpu_devid(irq)) {
/* SPI case */
} else if (cpumask_empty(&armpmu->active_irqs)) {
/* PPI case */
}
?
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-11 18:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-01 14:12 [PATCH 0/5] arm_pmu: fix lockdep issues with ACPI systems Mark Rutland
2017-11-01 14:12 ` [PATCH 1/5] arm_pmu: fold platform helpers into platform code Mark Rutland
2017-11-01 14:12 ` [PATCH 2/5] arm_pmu: have armpmu_alloc() take GFP flags Mark Rutland
2017-12-06 6:54 ` Zhangshaokun
2017-12-11 17:37 ` Will Deacon
2017-12-11 18:02 ` Mark Rutland
2017-11-01 14:12 ` [PATCH 3/5] arm_pmu: acpi: check for mismatched PPIs Mark Rutland
2017-12-11 17:37 ` Will Deacon
2017-12-11 18:08 ` Mark Rutland
2017-12-11 18:43 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2017-11-01 14:12 ` [PATCH 4/5] arm_pmu: note IRQs/PMUs per-cpu Mark Rutland
2017-12-11 17:36 ` Will Deacon
2017-12-11 18:15 ` Mark Rutland
2017-11-01 14:12 ` [PATCH 5/5] arm_pmu: acpi: request IRQs up-front Mark Rutland
2017-12-11 17:36 ` Will Deacon
2017-12-11 17:55 ` Mark Rutland
2017-12-11 18:45 ` Will Deacon
2017-11-01 17:02 ` [PATCH 0/5] arm_pmu: fix lockdep issues with ACPI systems Tyler Baicar
2017-12-11 17:38 ` Will Deacon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171211184337.GF3275@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm$(echo .)com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox