lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/8] genirq/affinity: factor out a irq_affinity_set helper
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jun 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > +bool irq_affinity_set(int irq, struct irq_desc *desc, const cpumask_t *mask)
> > +{
> > + struct irq_data *data = irq_desc_get_irq_data(desc);
> > + struct irq_chip *chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip(data);
> > + bool ret = false;
> > +
> > + if (!irq_can_move_pcntxt(data) && chip->irq_mask)
> > + chip->irq_mask(data);
> > +
> > + if (chip->irq_set_affinity) {
> > + if (chip->irq_set_affinity(data, mask, true) == -ENOSPC)
> > + pr_crit("IRQ %d set affinity failed because there are no available vectors. The device assigned to this IRQ is unstable.\n", irq);
> > + ret = true;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * We unmask if the irq was not marked masked by the core code.
> > + * That respects the lazy irq disable behaviour.
> > + */
> > + if (!irq_can_move_pcntxt(data) &&
> > + !irqd_irq_masked(data) && chip->irq_unmask)
> > + chip->irq_unmask(data);
>
> There is another issue with this. Nothing updates the affinity mask in
> irq_desc, when we just invoke the chip callback. Let me have a look.

Indeed. So that magic you do in the next patches (the hotplug callbacks)
only work proper for affinity masks with a single cpu set.

The problem is that we don't have a distinction between the 'possible'
(e.g. set by /proc/irq/affinity) and the effective affinity mask.

Needs more thought.

Thanks,

tglx

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-06-16 14:02    [W:0.086 / U:0.896 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site