Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 3 Dec 2013 13:50:02 +0000 | From | Will Deacon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V6 2/2] arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt |
| |
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:34:03AM +0000, Vinayak Kale wrote: > 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);
Why not just cpumask_clear_cpu?
> + disable_percpu_irq(irq); > +} > + > +static void > armpmu_release_hardware(struct arm_pmu *armpmu) > { > - int i, irq, irqs; > + int irq; > + 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; > + > + if (irq_is_percpu(irq)) { > + on_each_cpu(armpmu_disable_percpu_irq, armpmu, 1); > + free_percpu_irq(irq, &cpu_hw_events); > + } else { > + 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); > + } > } > } > > +static void > +armpmu_enable_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); > + > + enable_percpu_irq(irq, IRQ_TYPE_NONE); > + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &armpmu->active_irqs);
Hmm, wouldn't it make more sense to pass the irq in data, then deal with the mask in the caller? (since the mask will *always* be updated by each CPU).
Similarly for the disable path.
Will
|  |