[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 16:18:10 +0800
From: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
Song Liu <liu.song.a23@...il.com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Mike Travis <mike.travis@....com>, <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/8] x86/apic: Provide apic_ack_irq()
Hi Thomas,
At 06/06/2018 04:04 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2018, Dou Liyang wrote:
>
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> At 06/05/2018 07:41 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018, Dou Liyang wrote:
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + if (unlikely(irqd_is_setaffinity_pending(irqd)))
>>>>
>>>> Affinity pending is also judged in
>>>>
>>>>> + irq_move_irq(irqd);
>>>>
>>>> If we can remove the if(...) statement here
>>>
>>> That requires to fix all call sites in ia64 and that's why I didn't. But
>>
>> I didn't express clearly, I meant remove the if(...) statement from
>> apic_ack_irq(), it doesn't require to fix the call sites in ia64.
>
> I put the check there on purpose as I explained in the changelog:
>
> Making the invocation of irq_move_irq() conditional avoids the out of
> line call if the pending bit is not set.
>
I completely understand now, thank you so much. :-)
Thanks,
dou
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists