From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> To: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, bhelgaas@google.com, ravikanth.nalla@hpe.com, linux@rainbow-software.org, timur@codeaurora.org, cov@codeaurora.org, jcm@redhat.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, agross@codeaurora.org, Robert Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com>, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, wim@djo.tudelft.nl, devel@acpica.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/3] Revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: separate ISA penalty calculation" Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 21:31:09 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20161021023109.GD31044@localhost> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1476915664-27231-4-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 06:21:04PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote: > This reverts commit f7eca374f000 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: separate ISA penalty > calculation") and commit 487cf917ed0d ("revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: remove > redundant code in acpi_irq_penalty_init()""). > > Now that we understand the real issue (SCI and ISA penalty getting > calculated before ACPI start), there is no need for special handling > for ISA interrupts. > > Let's try to simplify the code one more time to share code. I'm sort of OK with this, but it's not exactly a revert of the above (the commits you mention don't check "link->irq.initialized == 1". Previously acpi_irq_penalty_init() looked at _PRS info ("possible" IRQs), but now we won't. Maybe that's good; I dunno. But it should be mentioned. And I don't think it fixes a user-visible problem, so it doesn't need to be applied immediately. I'm not sure this is worth doing by itself; maybe it should wait until we can do more cleanup and think about all these issues together? > Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> > --- > arch/x86/pci/acpi.c | 1 - > drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 44 +++++--------------------------------------- > include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h | 1 - > 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c > index 3cd6983..b2a4e2a 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c > +++ b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c > @@ -396,7 +396,6 @@ int __init pci_acpi_init(void) > return -ENODEV; > > printk(KERN_INFO "PCI: Using ACPI for IRQ routing\n"); > - acpi_irq_penalty_init(); > pcibios_enable_irq = acpi_pci_irq_enable; > pcibios_disable_irq = acpi_pci_irq_disable; > x86_init.pci.init_irq = x86_init_noop; > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c > index 294b190..dd14d78 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c > @@ -478,7 +478,8 @@ static int acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(int irq) > * If a link is active, penalize its IRQ heavily > * so we try to choose a different IRQ. > */ > - if (link->irq.active && link->irq.active == irq) > + if ((link->irq.active && link->irq.active == irq) && > + (link->irq.initialized == 1)) > penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING; > > /* > @@ -501,45 +502,10 @@ static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq) > penalty += sci_penalty; > > if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS) > - return penalty + acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq]; > + penalty += acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq]; > > - return penalty + acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq); > -} > - > -int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void) > -{ > - struct acpi_pci_link *link; > - int i; > - > - /* > - * Update penalties to facilitate IRQ balancing. > - */ > - list_for_each_entry(link, &acpi_link_list, list) { > - > - /* > - * reflect the possible and active irqs in the penalty table -- > - * useful for breaking ties. > - */ > - if (link->irq.possible_count) { > - int penalty = > - PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE / > - link->irq.possible_count; > - > - for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) { > - if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS) > - acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq. > - possible[i]] += > - penalty; > - } > - > - } else if (link->irq.active && > - (link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)) { > - acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] += > - PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE; > - } > - } > - > - return 0; > + penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq); > + return penalty; > } > > static int acpi_irq_balance = -1; /* 0: static, 1: balance */ > diff --git a/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h b/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h > index 29c6912..797ae2e 100644 > --- a/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h > +++ b/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h > @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ > > /* ACPI PCI Interrupt Link (pci_link.c) */ > > -int acpi_irq_penalty_init(void); > int acpi_pci_link_allocate_irq(acpi_handle handle, int index, int *triggering, > int *polarity, char **name); > int acpi_pci_link_free_irq(acpi_handle handle); > -- > 1.9.1 > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: helgaas@kernel.org (Bjorn Helgaas) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH V4 3/3] Revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: separate ISA penalty calculation" Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 21:31:09 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20161021023109.GD31044@localhost> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1476915664-27231-4-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 06:21:04PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote: > This reverts commit f7eca374f000 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: separate ISA penalty > calculation") and commit 487cf917ed0d ("revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: remove > redundant code in acpi_irq_penalty_init()""). > > Now that we understand the real issue (SCI and ISA penalty getting > calculated before ACPI start), there is no need for special handling > for ISA interrupts. > > Let's try to simplify the code one more time to share code. I'm sort of OK with this, but it's not exactly a revert of the above (the commits you mention don't check "link->irq.initialized == 1". Previously acpi_irq_penalty_init() looked at _PRS info ("possible" IRQs), but now we won't. Maybe that's good; I dunno. But it should be mentioned. And I don't think it fixes a user-visible problem, so it doesn't need to be applied immediately. I'm not sure this is worth doing by itself; maybe it should wait until we can do more cleanup and think about all these issues together? > Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> > --- > arch/x86/pci/acpi.c | 1 - > drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 44 +++++--------------------------------------- > include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h | 1 - > 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c > index 3cd6983..b2a4e2a 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c > +++ b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c > @@ -396,7 +396,6 @@ int __init pci_acpi_init(void) > return -ENODEV; > > printk(KERN_INFO "PCI: Using ACPI for IRQ routing\n"); > - acpi_irq_penalty_init(); > pcibios_enable_irq = acpi_pci_irq_enable; > pcibios_disable_irq = acpi_pci_irq_disable; > x86_init.pci.init_irq = x86_init_noop; > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c > index 294b190..dd14d78 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c > @@ -478,7 +478,8 @@ static int acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(int irq) > * If a link is active, penalize its IRQ heavily > * so we try to choose a different IRQ. > */ > - if (link->irq.active && link->irq.active == irq) > + if ((link->irq.active && link->irq.active == irq) && > + (link->irq.initialized == 1)) > penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING; > > /* > @@ -501,45 +502,10 @@ static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq) > penalty += sci_penalty; > > if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS) > - return penalty + acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq]; > + penalty += acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq]; > > - return penalty + acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq); > -} > - > -int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void) > -{ > - struct acpi_pci_link *link; > - int i; > - > - /* > - * Update penalties to facilitate IRQ balancing. > - */ > - list_for_each_entry(link, &acpi_link_list, list) { > - > - /* > - * reflect the possible and active irqs in the penalty table -- > - * useful for breaking ties. > - */ > - if (link->irq.possible_count) { > - int penalty = > - PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE / > - link->irq.possible_count; > - > - for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) { > - if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS) > - acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq. > - possible[i]] += > - penalty; > - } > - > - } else if (link->irq.active && > - (link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)) { > - acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] += > - PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE; > - } > - } > - > - return 0; > + penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq); > + return penalty; > } > > static int acpi_irq_balance = -1; /* 0: static, 1: balance */ > diff --git a/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h b/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h > index 29c6912..797ae2e 100644 > --- a/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h > +++ b/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h > @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ > > /* ACPI PCI Interrupt Link (pci_link.c) */ > > -int acpi_irq_penalty_init(void); > int acpi_pci_link_allocate_irq(acpi_handle handle, int index, int *triggering, > int *polarity, char **name); > int acpi_pci_link_free_irq(acpi_handle handle); > -- > 1.9.1 > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-21 2:31 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2016-10-19 22:21 [PATCH V4 0/3] ACPI,PCI,IRQ: revert penalty calculation for ISA and SCI interrupts Sinan Kaya 2016-10-19 22:21 ` [PATCH V4 0/3] ACPI, PCI, IRQ: " Sinan Kaya 2016-10-19 22:21 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-19 22:21 ` [PATCH V4 1/3] ACPI, PCI, IRQ: assign ISA IRQ directly during early boot stages Sinan Kaya 2016-10-19 22:21 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-19 22:21 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-20 21:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2016-10-20 21:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2016-10-20 21:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2016-10-24 3:48 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-24 3:48 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-24 3:48 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-21 1:39 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2016-10-21 1:39 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2016-10-21 14:07 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2016-10-21 14:07 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2016-10-24 3:22 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-24 3:22 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-23 3:48 ` [V4, " Jonathan Liu 2016-10-23 3:48 ` Jonathan Liu 2016-10-24 4:17 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-24 4:17 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-24 4:21 ` Jonathan Liu 2016-10-24 4:21 ` Jonathan Liu 2016-10-19 22:21 ` [PATCH V4 2/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function" Sinan Kaya 2016-10-19 22:21 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-19 22:21 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-21 1:58 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2016-10-21 1:58 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2016-10-21 14:45 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2016-10-21 14:45 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2016-10-21 16:13 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-21 16:13 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-22 14:57 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2016-10-22 14:57 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2016-10-24 3:48 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-24 3:48 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-22 23:28 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2016-10-22 23:28 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2016-10-24 3:48 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-24 3:48 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-23 3:49 ` [V4,2/3] " Jonathan Liu 2016-10-23 3:49 ` Jonathan Liu 2016-10-19 22:21 ` [PATCH V4 3/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: separate ISA penalty calculation" Sinan Kaya 2016-10-19 22:21 ` [PATCH V4 3/3] Revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: " Sinan Kaya 2016-10-19 22:21 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-21 2:31 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message] 2016-10-21 2:31 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2016-10-21 2:58 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-21 2:58 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-22 23:59 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2016-10-22 23:59 ` Bjorn Helgaas 2016-10-24 4:16 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-24 4:16 ` Sinan Kaya 2016-10-23 3:49 ` [V4,3/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: " Jonathan Liu 2016-10-23 3:49 ` Jonathan Liu
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20161021023109.GD31044@localhost \ --to=helgaas@kernel.org \ --cc=agross@codeaurora.org \ --cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \ --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \ --cc=cov@codeaurora.org \ --cc=devel@acpica.org \ --cc=hpa@zytor.com \ --cc=jcm@redhat.com \ --cc=lenb@kernel.org \ --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux@rainbow-software.org \ --cc=lv.zheng@intel.com \ --cc=mingo@redhat.com \ --cc=okaya@codeaurora.org \ --cc=ravikanth.nalla@hpe.com \ --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \ --cc=robert.moore@intel.com \ --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \ --cc=timur@codeaurora.org \ --cc=wim@djo.tudelft.nl \ --cc=x86@kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.