Messages in this thread | | On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > + > +struct irq_timings { > + u64 values[IRQ_TIMINGS_SIZE]; /* our circular buffer */ > + unsigned int count; /* Number of interruptions since last inspection */
Groan. These tail comments are horrible.
Please make the struct member names tabular aligned and add proper kernel doc comments if you want to add useful documentations for the fields.
> +}; > + > +DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct irq_timings, irq_timings); > + > +static inline void remove_timings(struct irq_desc *desc)
irq_remove_timings
> +{ > + desc->istate &= ~IRQS_TIMINGS; > +} > + > +static inline void setup_timings(struct irq_desc *desc, struct irqaction *act)
...
> +{ > + /* > + * We don't need the measurement because the idle code already > + * knows the next expiry event. > + */ > + if (act->flags & __IRQF_TIMER) > + return; > + > + desc->istate |= IRQS_TIMINGS; > +} > + > +extern void irq_timings_enable(void); > +extern void irq_timings_disable(void); > + > +extern struct static_key_false irq_timing_enabled;
DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE
> +/* > + * The interrupt number and the timestamp are encoded into a single > + * u64 variable to optimize the size. > + * 48 bit time stamp and 16 bit IRQ number is way sufficient. > + * Who cares an IRQ after 78 hours of idle time? > + */ > +static inline u64 irq_timing_encode(u64 timestamp, int irq) > +{ > + return (timestamp << 16) | irq; > +} > + > +static inline void irq_timing_decode(u64 value, u64 *timestamp, int *irq)
What's wrong with using a return value instead of void?
> +{ > + *timestamp = value >> 16; > + *irq = value & U16_MAX; > +}
Thanks,
tglx
| |