Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:30:38 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] genirq: arm64: perf: support for percpu pmu interrupt | From | Vinayak Kale <> |
| |
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 01:04:23AM +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> On 11/06/13 04:07, Vinayak Kale wrote: >> > This patch series adds support to handle interrupt registration/deregistration >> > in arm64 pmu driver when pmu interrupt type is percpu. >> > >> > Patches in this patch series were previously sent out as separate patches [1]. >> > This patch series incorporates comments/fixes suggested for original patches. >> > >> > [1] >> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-October/205888.html >> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-October/204414.html >> > >> > Vinayak Kale (2): >> > genirq: error reporting in request_percpu_irq() and >> > request_threaded_irq() >> > arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt >> > >> > arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 109 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- >> > kernel/irq/manage.c | 12 +++-- >> > 2 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) >> > >> >> What ever happened to the approach here[1]? It doesn't look very nice to >> have to request the irq first as a per-cpu interrupt and then try as a >> non-percpu interrupt when genirq already knows if its per-cpu or not. >> >> [1] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1207.3/02955.html > > Hmm, I'd completely forgotten about that approach. Whilst it certainly looks > cleaner from a user perspective, I always get scared when I see > 'desc->status_use_accessors' since it tends to incur the wrath of tglx :) > > That said, I guess that should be fine in irqdesc.h (basically adding a new > accessor). Chris went missing after sending those initial patches, so > perhaps Vinayak could look at resurrecting those? > Okay, in next patch revision I will use that approach.
| |