Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Oct 2022 20:59:27 -0700 | From | Ricardo Neri <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 12/23] thermal: intel: hfi: Convert table_lock to use flags-handling variants |
| |
On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 01:36:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 01:34:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 04:11:54PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote: > > > > > --- a/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_hfi.c > > > +++ b/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_hfi.c > > > @@ -175,9 +175,10 @@ static struct workqueue_struct *hfi_updates_wq; > > > static void get_hfi_caps(struct hfi_instance *hfi_instance, > > > struct thermal_genl_cpu_caps *cpu_caps) > > > { > > > + unsigned long flags; > > > int cpu, i = 0; > > > > > > - raw_spin_lock_irq(&hfi_instance->table_lock); > > > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&hfi_instance->table_lock, flags); > > > for_each_cpu(cpu, hfi_instance->cpus) { > > > struct hfi_cpu_data *caps; > > > s16 index; > > > > ^^^^ Anti-pattern alert! > > > > Now your IRQ latency depends on nr_cpus -- which is a fair fail. The > > existing code is already pretty crap in that it has the preemption > > latency depend on nr_cpus. > > > > While I'm here looking at the HFI stuff, did they fix that HFI interrupt > > broadcast mess already? Sending an interrupt to *all* CPUs is quite > > insane. > > Anyway; given the existence of this here loop; why not have something > like: > > DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, hfi_ipc_class); > > class = // extract from HFI mess > WRITE_ONCE(per_cpu(hfi_ipc_class, cpu), class); > > And then have the tick use this_cpu_read(hfi_ipc_class)? No extra > locking required.
Thanks Peter. I think this is a good solution. I will implement it.
BR, Ricardo
| |