lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add chip hooks for taking CPUs on/off line.
On 03/21/2011 02:13 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, David Daney wrote:
>
>> On 03/19/2011 01:51 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, David Daney wrote:
>>>> --- a/include/linux/irqdesc.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/irqdesc.h
>>>> @@ -178,6 +178,12 @@ static inline int irq_has_action(unsigned int irq)
>>>> return desc->action != NULL;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +/* Test to see if the irq is currently enabled */
>>>> +static inline int irq_desc_is_enabled(struct irq_desc *desc)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return desc->depth == 0;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> That want's to go into kernel/irq/internal.h
>>
>> I think I need to use this in my irq_chip.irq_unmask method.
>>
>> Consider this:
>>
>>
>> CPU0 CPU1
>> handle_level_irq
>> lock
>> mask
>> handle_irq_event
>> unlock
>> .
>> . disable_irq
>> .
>> lock
>> unmask
>> unlock
>
> handle level irq does:
>
> if (!(desc->istate& (IRQS_DISABLED | IRQS_ONESHOT)))
> unmask_irq(desc);
>
> So it does not call unmask.
>
>> I need to know in my .unmask method if the interrupt has been disabled. If it
>> has, I will not re-enable (unmask)it.
>
> It wont be called :)
>

I missed that. Really irq_desc_is_enabled() should just use the
IRQS_DISABLED flag.

I will do that.


>>>
>>>> #ifndef CONFIG_GENERIC_HARDIRQS_NO_COMPAT
>>>> static inline int irq_balancing_disabled(unsigned int irq)
>>>> {
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/irq/chip.c b/kernel/irq/chip.c
>>>> index c9c0601..40736f7 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/irq/chip.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/irq/chip.c
>>>> @@ -689,3 +689,38 @@ void irq_modify_status(unsigned int irq, unsigned
>>>> long clr, unsigned long set)
>>>>
>>>> irq_put_desc_unlock(desc, flags);
>>>> }
>>>> +
>>>> +void irq_cpu_online(unsigned int irq)
>>>
>>> Odd function name. It does not reflect that this is for per cpu
>>> interrupts. So something like irq_xxx_per_cpu_irq(irq)
>>> might be a bit more descriptive.
>>
>> I am using it for per cpu interrupts, but I didn't want to impose that policy
>> on others.
>
> I can't imagine any other purpose for that.

Modifying the affinity of non-per-cpu IRQs to use the new CPU?

>
>>> Though one question remains: should we just iterate over the irq space
>>> and call the online/offline callbacks when available instead of having
>>> the arch code do the iteration.
>>>
>>
>> That would be good I think, especially for sparse irqs.
>>
>> In the case of the CPU going offline, the .irq_cpu_offline() may need to
>> adjust the affinity so that the irq no longer has affinity for the off-lined
>> CPU.
>>
>> This is something needed even for non-per-cpu interrupts. Also I would need a
>> way to call irq_set_affinity() while holding the desc->lock.
>
> Hmm. The offline fixup_irq() code is arch specific and usually calls
> desc->irq_data.chip->irq_set_affinity under desc->lock. I have not yet
> found an arch independent way to do that. Any ideas welcome.
>

There are all the new affinity callbacks, and the things shown in
procfs? Are those handled properly if I call chip->irq_set_affinity? I
think not.

David Daney



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-23 23:05    [W:0.052 / U:25.808 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site