[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110422082636.GC24011@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 10:26:36 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Maciej Rutecki <maciej.rutecki@...il.com>,
George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] perf, nmi: Move LVT un-masking into irq handlers
* Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> @@ -1284,6 +1284,9 @@ static int x86_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
>
> cpuc = &__get_cpu_var(cpu_hw_events);
>
> + /* chipsets have their own quirks when to unmask */
> + apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI);
> +
What sense does this comment make in this place?
Yes, chipsets have their own quirks - but the generic handler is not one of
them. So a more appropriate comment would be to point out why we want to unmask
there - before PMU handling or after it, etc.
Like the P4 quirk is documented a bit better:
> + /*
> + * P4 quirks:
> + * - An overflown perfctr will assert its interrupt
> + * until the OVF flag in its CCCR is cleared.
> + * - LVTPC is masked on interrupt and must be
> + * unmasked by the LVTPC handler.
> + */
> + apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI);
(btw., there's whitespace damage above as well.)
Furthermore, the P4 comment should *explain* the quirk coherently, not just
list random facts. What happens, why, where, and why do we unmask the LVTPC in
that spot.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists