lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH V6 2/2] arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt
From
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:34:03AM +0000, Vinayak Kale wrote:
>> Add support for irq registration when pmu interrupt is percpu.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vinayak Kale <vkale@apm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Tuan Phan <tphan@apm.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 116 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>> 1 file changed, 86 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
>> index cea1594..d2d562f 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 +364,61 @@ validate_group(struct perf_event *event)
>> }
>>
>> static void
>> +armpmu_disable_percpu_irq(void *data)
>> +{
>> + struct arm_pmu *armpmu = data;
>> + struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device;
>> + int irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0);
>> +
>> + cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &armpmu->active_irqs);
>> + disable_percpu_irq(irq);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void
>> armpmu_release_hardware(struct arm_pmu *armpmu)
>> {
>> - int i, irq, irqs;
>> + int irq;
>
> Why did you not make this unsigned, like I suggested?

Suggestion was to make 'irqs' variable unsigned and modify the check
for 'irqs' to if (!irqs).
This patch incorporates that suggestion.

We have to keep 'irq' signed only. 'platform_get_irq()' can return error value.

>
>> + unsigned int i, irqs;
>> struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device;
>>
>> irqs = min(pmu_device->num_resources, num_possible_cpus());
>> + if (!irqs)
>> + return;
>>
>> - for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) {
>> - if (!cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(i, &armpmu->active_irqs))
>> - continue;
>> - irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, i);
>> - if (irq >= 0)
>> - free_irq(irq, armpmu);
>> + irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0);
>> + if (irq <= 0)
>> + return;
>
> Then this is just an if (!irq), as I mentioned last time.

Please see my above comment.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-03 13:01    [W:2.420 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site