All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: John Keeping <john@metanate.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	x86@kernel.org, Ben Herrenschmidt <benh@amazon.com>,
	Ali Saidi <alisaidi@amazon.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] genirq/affinity: Handle affinity setting on inactive interrupts correctly
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 15:35:44 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <874kptcc7j.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <875zabyeyo.wl-maz@kernel.org>

Marc,

Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> writes:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 21:03:50 +0100,
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>> Right. My brain tricked me to believe that we made activation mandatory,
>> but that's not.
>> 
>> I have some ideas for a trivial generic way to solve this without
>> undoing the commit in question and without going through all the irq
>> chip drivers. So far everything I came up with is butt ugly. Maybe Marc
>> has some brilliant idea.
>
> Not really. We have contradicting behaviours here, where some
> interrupts want to see the set_affinity early (the above case), and
> some cannot handle that (x86 vectors and the GICv3 ITS). We could key
> it on the presence of an activate callback, but it feels fragile.

Yes, I thought about that briefly, but yeah, it's fragile and bound to
break in weird ways.

That said, we should make activate mandatory and actually set up the
affinity during activation correctly.

Thanks,

        tglx

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: Ben Herrenschmidt <benh@amazon.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	John Keeping <john@metanate.com>, Ali Saidi <alisaidi@amazon.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] genirq/affinity: Handle affinity setting on inactive interrupts correctly
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 15:35:44 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <874kptcc7j.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <875zabyeyo.wl-maz@kernel.org>

Marc,

Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> writes:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 21:03:50 +0100,
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>> Right. My brain tricked me to believe that we made activation mandatory,
>> but that's not.
>> 
>> I have some ideas for a trivial generic way to solve this without
>> undoing the commit in question and without going through all the irq
>> chip drivers. So far everything I came up with is butt ugly. Maybe Marc
>> has some brilliant idea.
>
> Not really. We have contradicting behaviours here, where some
> interrupts want to see the set_affinity early (the above case), and
> some cannot handle that (x86 vectors and the GICv3 ITS). We could key
> it on the presence of an activate callback, but it feels fragile.

Yes, I thought about that briefly, but yeah, it's fragile and bound to
break in weird ways.

That said, we should make activate mandatory and actually set up the
affinity during activation correctly.

Thanks,

        tglx

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2020-07-27 13:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-17 13:14 [PATCH] genirq/affinity: Handle affinity setting on inactive interrupts correctly Thomas Gleixner
2020-07-17 13:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-07-17 15:25 ` kernel test robot
2020-07-17 15:25   ` kernel test robot
2020-07-17 15:25   ` kernel test robot
2020-07-17 16:00 ` [PATCH V2] " Thomas Gleixner
2020-07-17 16:00   ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-07-24 17:24   ` John Keeping
2020-07-24 17:24     ` John Keeping
2020-07-24 20:03     ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-07-24 20:03       ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-07-24 20:44       ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-07-24 20:44         ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-07-25 12:30         ` Marc Zyngier
2020-07-25 12:30           ` Marc Zyngier
2020-07-27 14:25           ` [tip: irq/urgent] genirq/debugfs: Add missing irqchip flags tip-bot2 for Marc Zyngier
2020-07-27 14:25         ` [tip: irq/urgent] genirq/affinity: Make affinity setting if activated opt-in tip-bot2 for Thomas Gleixner
2020-07-30 13:48           ` Sasha Levin
2020-07-25 12:08       ` [PATCH V2] genirq/affinity: Handle affinity setting on inactive interrupts correctly Marc Zyngier
2020-07-25 12:08         ` Marc Zyngier
2020-07-27 13:35         ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2020-07-27 13:35           ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-07-17 18:04 ` [PATCH] " kernel test robot
2020-07-17 18:04   ` kernel test robot
2020-07-17 18:04   ` kernel test robot

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=874kptcc7j.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de \
    --to=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=alisaidi@amazon.com \
    --cc=benh@amazon.com \
    --cc=john@metanate.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --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: link
Be 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.