Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 12 Dec 2013 12:03:59 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH V7 2/2] arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt | From | Vinayak Kale <> |
| |
Hi Will,
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Vinayak Kale <vkale@apm.com> wrote: > Hi Will, > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: >> Hi Vinayak, >> >> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 10:09:51AM +0000, Vinayak Kale wrote: >>> Add support for irq registration when pmu interrupt is percpu. >> >> Getting closer... >> >>> Signed-off-by: Vinayak Kale <vkale@apm.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Tuan Phan <tphan@apm.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 108 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- >>> 1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c >>> index cea1594..d8e6667 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c >>> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ >>> >>> #include <linux/bitmap.h> >>> #include <linux/interrupt.h> >>> +#include <linux/irq.h> >>> #include <linux/kernel.h> >>> #include <linux/export.h> >>> #include <linux/perf_event.h> >>> @@ -363,26 +364,52 @@ validate_group(struct perf_event *event) >>> } >>> >>> static void >>> +armpmu_disable_percpu_irq(void *data) >>> +{ >>> + disable_percpu_irq((long)data); >>> +} >> >> Given that we wait for the CPUs to finish enabling/disabling the IRQ, I >> actually meant pass the pointer to the IRQ, which removes the horrible >> casts in the caller. >> >>> + if (irq_is_percpu(irq)) { >>> + cpumask_clear(&armpmu->active_irqs); >> >> Thanks for moving the mask manipulation out. It now makes it obvious that we >> don't care about the mask at all for PPIs, so that can be removed (the code >> you have is racy against hotplug anyway). >> >> I took the liberty of writing a fixup for you (see below). Can you test it >> on your platform please? > > Below fixup works fine on APM platform. > Do you want me to send this fixup as part of next revision of the > patch or will you apply it yourself? (For later case, you have my ack)
Any comments? Do I need to send the fix-up in next revision of patch?
Thanks -Vinayak
|  |