From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip/jcore: fix lost per-cpu interrupts
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2016 19:23:58 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610092121460.7166@nanos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161009144715.GB19318@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 01:03:10PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> My preference would just be to keep the branch, but with your improved
> version that doesn't need a function call:
>
> irqd_is_per_cpu(irq_desc_get_irq_data(desc))
>
> While there is some overhead testing this condition every time, I can
> probably come up with several better places to look for a ~10 cycle
> improvement in the irq code path without imposing new requirements on
> the DT bindings.
Fair enough. Your call.
> As noted in my followup to the clocksource stall thread, there's also
> a possibility that it might make sense to consider the current
> behavior of having non-percpu irqs bound to a particular cpu as part
> of what's required by the compatible tag, in which case
> handle_percpu_irq or something similar/equivalent might be suitable
> for both the percpu and non-percpu cases. I don't understand the irq
> subsystem well enough to insist on that but I think it's worth
> consideration since it looks like it would improve performance of
> non-percpu interrupts a bit.
Well, you can use handle_percpu_irq() for your device interrupts if you
guarantee at the hardware level that there is no reentrancy. Once you make
the hardware capable of delivering them on either core the picture changes.
Thanks,
tglx
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip/jcore: fix lost per-cpu interrupts
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:23:58 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610092121460.7166@nanos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161009144715.GB19318@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 01:03:10PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> My preference would just be to keep the branch, but with your improved
> version that doesn't need a function call:
>
> irqd_is_per_cpu(irq_desc_get_irq_data(desc))
>
> While there is some overhead testing this condition every time, I can
> probably come up with several better places to look for a ~10 cycle
> improvement in the irq code path without imposing new requirements on
> the DT bindings.
Fair enough. Your call.
> As noted in my followup to the clocksource stall thread, there's also
> a possibility that it might make sense to consider the current
> behavior of having non-percpu irqs bound to a particular cpu as part
> of what's required by the compatible tag, in which case
> handle_percpu_irq or something similar/equivalent might be suitable
> for both the percpu and non-percpu cases. I don't understand the irq
> subsystem well enough to insist on that but I think it's worth
> consideration since it looks like it would improve performance of
> non-percpu interrupts a bit.
Well, you can use handle_percpu_irq() for your device interrupts if you
guarantee at the hardware level that there is no reentrancy. Once you make
the hardware capable of delivering them on either core the picture changes.
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-09 19:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-09 5:59 [PATCH] irqchip/jcore: fix lost per-cpu interrupts Rich Felker
2016-10-09 11:03 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-10-09 11:03 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-10-09 14:47 ` Rich Felker
2016-10-09 14:47 ` Rich Felker
2016-10-09 19:23 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2016-10-09 19:23 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-10-09 22:06 ` Rich Felker
2016-10-09 22:06 ` Rich Felker
2016-10-09 23:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-10-09 23:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-10-11 15:21 ` Rich Felker
2016-10-11 15:21 ` Rich Felker
2016-10-12 8:18 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-10-12 8:18 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-10-12 16:35 ` Rich Felker
2016-10-12 16:35 ` Rich Felker
2016-10-12 20:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-10-12 20:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-10-12 22:19 ` Rich Felker
2016-10-12 22:19 ` Rich Felker
2016-10-13 7:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-10-13 7:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=alpine.DEB.2.20.1610092121460.7166@nanos \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=dalias@libc.org \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=jason@lakedaemon.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/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.