[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140910182137.GL1710@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 19:21:37 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: perf: Don't sleep while atomic when enabling
per-cpu interrupts
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 06:54:45PM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 09/09/14 04:39, Will Deacon wrote:
> > It's interesting that arm64 isn't affected by this problem, since we don't
> > update the active_irqs mask for PPIs there and consequently just pass the
> > irq instead of the cpu_pmu. I can't see why we actually need to update the
> > active_irqs mask for arch/arm/, so could we remove that and follow arm64's
> > lead instead? That would remove the need for a new struct definition too.
> >
>
> I guess you're saying that we don't need the active_irqs mask in the
> percpu irq case? It looks like we still use it to determine when the
> last CPU PMU has been disabled in the non-percpu case.
Correct.
> Here's the interdiff. Is there a reason arm64 casts data to an unsigned
> int pointer when what's passed is an int pointer?
There has to be a cast to something because data is a void *.
enable_percpu_irq takes an unsigned int, so I guess that's why it was
chosen. I'm not fussed either way.
Feel free to submit the full patch with my ack:
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Will
--
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