[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ec0819d5-9dc6-6b25-47a9-cd9d9e5099a8@wdc.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 13:35:10 -0700
From: Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: "palmer@...ive.com" <palmer@...ive.com>,
"linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"anup@...infault.org" <anup@...infault.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"damein@...r.kernel.org" <damein@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] RISC-V: Use Linux logical cpu number instead of
hartid
On 8/30/18 11:11 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> -#define flush_tlb_all() sbi_remote_sfence_vma(NULL, 0, -1)
>> +static inline void remote_sfence_vma(struct cpumask *cmask, unsigned long start,
>> + unsigned long size)
>> +{
>> + struct cpumask hmask;
>> +
>> + riscv_cpuid_to_hartid_mask(cmask, &hmask);
>> + sbi_remote_sfence_vma(hmask.bits, start, size);
>> +}
>> +
>> +#define flush_tlb_all() remote_sfence_vma(NULL, 0, -1)
>
> flush_tlb_all passed NULL to sbi_remote_sfence_vma before, so this
> changes what we pass. I think we should keep the existing behavior.
>
sure. How about this ?
--- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/tlbflush.h
+++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/tlbflush.h
@@ -55,8 +55,13 @@ static inline void remote_sfence_vma(struct cpumask
*cmask, unsigned long start,
{
struct cpumask hmask;
- riscv_cpuid_to_hartid_mask(cmask, &hmask);
- sbi_remote_sfence_vma(hmask.bits, start, size);
+ if (cmask == NULL) {
+ sbi_remote_sfence_vma(NULL, start, size);
+ } else {
+ cpumask_clear(&hmask);
+ riscv_cpuid_to_hartid_mask(cmask, &hmask);
+ sbi_remote_sfence_vma(hmask.bits, start, size);
+ }
}
>> @@ -93,10 +94,11 @@ static inline void plic_toggle(int ctxid, int hwirq, int enable)
>> static inline void plic_irq_toggle(struct irq_data *d, int enable)
>> {
>> int cpu;
>> + struct plic_handler *handler;
>>
>> writel(enable, plic_regs + PRIORITY_BASE + d->hwirq * PRIORITY_PER_ID);
>> for_each_cpu(cpu, irq_data_get_affinity_mask(d)) {
>> - struct plic_handler *handler = per_cpu_ptr(&plic_handlers, cpu);
>> + handler = per_cpu_ptr(&plic_handlers, cpu);
>
> This looks like a spurious change.
>
I think I did this to avoid possible compiler warnings. Will revert it.
Regards,
Atish
Powered by blists - more mailing lists