[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <513DB201.80503@ti.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:59:21 +0530
From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
To: Rickard Andersson <rickard.andersson@...ricsson.com>
CC: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
"john.stultz@...aro.org" <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"viresh.kumar@...aro.org" <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
"jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com" <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
"patches@...aro.org" <patches@...aro.org>,
Linus WALLEIJ <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] time: dynamic irq affinity
On Monday 11 March 2013 02:58 PM, Rickard Andersson wrote:
> On 03/11/2013 10:12 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Monday 11 March 2013 02:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> On 03/11/2013 04:24 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>>> On Sunday 10 March 2013 11:52 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>>>> I don't think it is the case for all the ARM platforms, at least we
>>>>> tested it on vexpress TC2 and u8500, and the number of IPI were reduced
>>>>> very significantly increasing the idle time for cpu0. TC2 will need
>>>>> another optimization on another area for the idle wake up to gain real
>>>>> improvements.
>>>>>
>>>> You are missing my point. TC2 can be an exception since the SGI can wakeup
>>>> CPUs even from low power states where local timer's are stalled. Is that
>>>> the case with U8500 ?
>>> Well, the cpuidle driver is not going into a deep idle state to check
>>> this out.
>>>
>>> AFAICT this board has a specific firmware with the PRCMU (a device
>>> managing the power on the board) and it replaces the GIC when going to
>>> deep idle state, especially by reconnecting the GIC to the A9 cores
>>> automatically when an interrupt occurs.
>>>
>> But most likely it will be limited to peripheral interrupts. SGI's
>> are per-cpu irq's so you need to check that part.
>>
> In the U8500 case, when the first CPU is woken up it will work ok for that CPU to send an IPI to the other CPU.
>
Nice. So in your case, IPI's will always work as long as one of the CPU is
active.
Regards
Santosh
--
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