Re: [PATCH] Fix interrupt distribution in ppc970

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Apr 26, 2007, at 4:24 AM, Mohan Kumar M wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 12:45:15AM -0500, Milton Miller wrote:
[snip]
Milton, I hope this patch meets all your requirements.

Closer, much better.
Cc: Milton Miller <miltonm@xxxxxxx>,
    Michael Ellerman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Mohan Kumar M <mohan@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6.21-rc4/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.21-rc4.orig/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c
+++ linux-2.6.21-rc4/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c
@@ -156,9 +156,9 @@ static inline void lpar_qirr_info(int n_
[snipping]
+	if (!cpus_equal(cpumask, CPU_MASK_ALL)) {
 		cpus_and(tmp, cpu_online_map, cpumask);

+		server = first_cpu(tmp);
+
+		if (server < NR_CPUS)
+			return get_hard_smp_processor_id(server);
+		else {
+			if(strict_check)
+				return (-1);

No parens around the return value.  That is, use return -1;

+			else
+				return default_distrib_server;
+		}
...

@@ -415,7 +421,10 @@ static void xics_set_affinity(unsigned i

 	/* For the moment only implement delivery to all cpus or one cpu */
 	if (cpus_equal(cpumask, CPU_MASK_ALL)) {
-		newmask = default_distrib_server;
+		if (cpus_equal(cpu_online_map, cpu_present_map))
+			newmask = default_distrib_server;
+		else
+			newmask = default_server;
 	} else {
 		cpus_and(tmp, cpu_online_map, cpumask);
 		if (cpus_empty(tmp))


===================
...
@@ -415,7 +419,10 @@ static void xics_set_affinity(unsigned i
...
	/* For the moment only implement delivery to all cpus or one cpu */
	if (cpus_equal(cpumask, CPU_MASK_ALL)) {
-		newmask = default_distrib_server;
+		if (cpus_equal(cpu_online_map, cpu_present_map))


this was supposed to be the call with strict = 1

Do you mean to use 'strict_check' argument in xics_set_affinity?
set_affinity call is declared in linux/irq.h, so if modifying
xics_set_affinity will affect other arch's set_affinity also.

Yes.   The whole point of
-static int get_irq_server(unsigned int virq)
+static int get_irq_server(unsigned int virq, unsigned int strict_check)
was to factor out the common code in this function.

I wasn't trying to change the prototype of xics_set_affinity.

Looking at the code a bit, I think part of the confusion is that newmask
is horribly misnamed.   Please rename it to server or irqserver.
Obtain its value by calling get_irq_server.  If the server returned
is -1 (in strict mode), don't call rtas (just return like today).
I guess a printk could be in order since the function is void, and
only root can request the change.

milton

_______________________________________________
fastboot mailing list
fastboot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fastboot

[Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Linux Resources]

Powered by Linux