linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/11] ARM: dts: Prepare Actions Semi S500 and LeMaker Guitar

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170215173610.GJ31733@leverpostej>
Date:   Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:36:11 +0000
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>
CC:     <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <mp-cs@...ions-semi.com>,
        <info@...obotics.com>, <support@...aker.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <nd@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/11] ARM: dts: Prepare Actions Semi S500 and LeMaker
 Guitar

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 06:28:31PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> Am 15.02.2017 um 18:07 schrieb Mark Rutland:
> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 05:55:25PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> >> +	arm-pmu {
> >> +		compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-pmu";
> >> +		interrupts = <GIC_SPI 4 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> >> +		             <GIC_SPI 5 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> >> +		             <GIC_SPI 6 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> >> +		             <GIC_SPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> >> +        };
> > 
> > Please add an interrupt-affinity property, as described in
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/pmu.txt
> 
> That's not in the vendor tree... My guess is it would be like this then?
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/s500.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/s500.dtsi
> index ee93984..959c6e3 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/s500.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/s500.dtsi
> @@ -82,7 +82,8 @@
>                              <GIC_SPI 5 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>                              <GIC_SPI 6 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>                              <GIC_SPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> -        };
> +               interrupt-affinity = <&cpu0>, <&cpu1>, <&cpu2>, <&cpu3>;
> +       };

Assuming that's how they're wired up, yes.

You should be able to test this by using perf record in per-cpu mode,
on an application with its affintiy fixed to a particular CPU, and
verifying that overflow interrupts are recevied on the same CPU.

Thanks,
Mark.