[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F31D96D8F@ORSMSX106.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 17:54:22 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>,
"Zhang, Yang Z" <yang.z.zhang@...el.com>,
"Gortmaker, Paul (Wind River)" <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
"Morgan, Janet" <janet.morgan@...el.com>,
Ruiv Wang <ruiv.wang@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86: Add check for number of available vectors before
CPU down [v6]
+ for (vector = FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR; vector < NR_VECTORS; vector++) {
+ irq = __this_cpu_read(vector_irq[vector]);
+ if (irq >= 0) {
+ desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
+ data = irq_desc_get_irq_data(desc);
+ cpumask_copy(&affinity_new, data->affinity);
+ cpu_clear(this_cpu, affinity_new);
+ /*
+ * The check below determines if this irq requires
+ * an empty vector_irq[irq] entry on an online
+ * cpu.
+ *
+ * The code only counts active non-percpu irqs, and
+ * those irqs that are not linked to on an online cpu.
+ * The first test is trivial, the second is not.
+ *
+ * The second test takes into account the
+ * account that a single irq may be mapped to multiple
+ * cpu's vector_irq[] (for example IOAPIC cluster
+ * mode). In this case we have two
+ * possibilities:
+ *
+ * 1) the resulting affinity mask is empty; that is
+ * this the down'd cpu is the last cpu in the irq's
+ * affinity mask, and
Code says "||" - so I think comment should say "or".
+ *
+ * 2) the resulting affinity mask is no longer
+ * a subset of the online cpus but the affinity
+ * mask is not zero; that is the down'd cpu is the
+ * last online cpu in a user set affinity mask.
+ *
+ * In both possibilities, we need to remap the irq
+ * to a new vector_irq[].
+ *
+ */
+ if (irq_has_action(irq) && !irqd_is_per_cpu(data) &&
+ (cpumask_empty(&affinity_new) ||
+ !cpumask_subset(&affinity_new, &online_new)))
+ this_count++;
+ }
That's an impressive 6:1 ratio of lines-of-comment to lines-of-code!
Perhaps it would be less scary if the test were broken up into the easy/obvious part
and the one that has taken all these revisions to work out? E.g.
/* no need to count inactive or per-cpu irqs */
if (!irq_has_action(irq) || irqd_is_per_cpu(data))
continue;
/*
* We need to look for a new home for this irq if:
... paste in 1), 2) from above here ... (but s/and/or/ to match code)
*/
if (cpumask_empty(&affinity_new) ||
!cpumask_subset(&affinity_new, &online_new))
this_count++;
-Tony
--
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