lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 12/23] thermal: intel: hfi: Convert table_lock to use flags-handling variants
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.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-09-27 13:38    [W:0.124 / U:0.348 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site