[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53EA970C.9070003@codeaurora.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 15:37:00 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip: gic: Allow gic_arch_extn hooks to call into
scheduler
On 08/05/14 19:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>
>> It allows us to synchronize with another CPU that may be inside
>> gic_raise_softirq(). If the other CPU was in that function then this CPU
>> would wait until it was done sending the IPI to continue along and
>> reroute them. If the other CPU was just about to grab the sgi lock then
>> we would guarantee that the CPU would see the new gic_cpu_map value and
>> thus any redirection is not necessary.
> OK I get it now.
>
>> I hoped that the commit text explained this.
> I'm possibly not bright enough to get it the first time.
>
>> Honestly it probably isn't a noticeable performance boost either way
>> but I think this is the best we can do.
> Sure, agreed.
>
>
>
Ok, so which patch is preferred?
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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