linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] [ARM] gic: Unmask private interrupts on all cores during IRQ enable

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4D0A281F.1090705@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:54:23 -0500
From:	Stephen Caudle <scaudle@...eaurora.org>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	dwalker@...eaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	adharmap@...eaurora.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	miltonm@....com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [ARM] gic: Unmask private interrupts on all cores
 during IRQ enable

On 12/09/2010 11:24 AM, Stephen Caudle wrote:
>> It is also unreasonable to have one core enabling the PPI on other
>> cores where the hardware behind the interrupt may not have been
>> initialized yet.  If it is a private interrupt for a private peripheral,
>> then only the associated CPU should be enabling that interrupt.
>>
>> I guess this is something which genirq can't cope with, in which case
>> either genirq needs to be modified to cope with private CPU interrupts,
>> which are controlled individually by their associated CPU, or we need a
>> private interface to support this.
> 
> I see your point.  Our immediate need for this is to support a
> performance monitor interrupt that happens to be a PPI.  It is used by
> perf events (and subsequently, oprofile).
> 
> Since PPIs are so machine-specific, I started looking into patching
> perf_events.c by adding a machine specific function to handle the PMU
> IRQ request.  For mach-msm, we would call request_irq like normal, but
> also unmask the performance monitor interrupt on the other cores.  The
> downside to this is that a machine specific implementation would be
> needed anytime a PPI is requested, not just in perf_events.c.
> 
> Then, I saw Thomas' email regarding our local timer PPI:
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2010-December/033840.html.
> 
> Russell, before I submit another patch, I would like to know if you
> prefer a more generic approach like Thomas suggests, or a
> machine-specific approach like I have described?

Russell, what are your thoughts on this?

Thanks,
Stephen

-- 
Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/