lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH V7 2/2] arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt
From
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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-12 08:01    [W:0.063 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site