From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
To: Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, anton@samba.org,
paulus@samba.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 08/11] powerpc: Add "mask_lvl" paramater to MASKABLE_* macros
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 15:21:00 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160801152100.55b6c5f1@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1469991989-28409-9-git-send-email-maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 00:36:26 +0530
Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Make it explicit the interrupt masking level supported
> by a gievn interrupt handler. Patch correspondingly
> extends the MASKABLE_* macros with an addition's parameter.
> "mask_lvl" parameter is passed to SOFTEN_TEST macro to decide
> on masking the interrupt.
Hey Madhavan,
It looks like this has worked quite nicely. I think you've
managed to avoid any additional instructions in fastpaths
if I'm reading correctly.
I will do a more comprehensive review, but I wanted to ask:
> @@ -426,79 +426,81 @@ label##_relon_hv: \
> #define SOFTEN_VALUE_0xe60 PACA_IRQ_HMI
> #define SOFTEN_VALUE_0xe62 PACA_IRQ_HMI
>
> -#define __SOFTEN_TEST(h, vec) \
> +#define __SOFTEN_TEST(h, vec, mask_lvl) \
> lbz r10,PACASOFTIRQEN(r13); \
> - cmpwi r10,IRQ_DISABLE_LEVEL_LINUX; \
> + andi. r10,r10,mask_lvl; \
> li r10,SOFTEN_VALUE_##vec; \
> - bge masked_##h##interrupt
> -#define _SOFTEN_TEST(h, vec) __SOFTEN_TEST(h, vec)
> + bne masked_##h##interrupt
> +#define _SOFTEN_TEST(h, vec, mask_lvl) __SOFTEN_TEST(h, vec, mask_lvl)
We're talking about IRQ masking levels, but here it looks
like you're actually treating it as a mask.
I don't have a strong preference. Mask is more flexible, but
potentially constrained in how many interrupt types it can
cope with. That said, I doubt we'll need more than 8 mask bits
considering we've lived with one for years. So perhaps a mask
is a better choice. Ben, others, any preferences?
We should just use either "mask" or "level" everywhere, depending
on what we go with.
Thanks,
Nick
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-01 5:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-31 19:06 [RFC PATCH v2 00/11] powerpc: "paca->soft_enabled" based local atomic operation implementation Madhavan Srinivasan
2016-07-31 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 01/11] Add #defs for paca->soft_enabled flags Madhavan Srinivasan
2016-07-31 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 02/11] Cleanup to use IRQ_DISABLE_LEVEL_* macros for paca->soft_enabled update Madhavan Srinivasan
2016-07-31 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 03/11] powerpc: move set_soft_enabled() Madhavan Srinivasan
2016-07-31 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 04/11] powerpc: Use set_soft_enabled api to update paca->soft_enabled Madhavan Srinivasan
2016-07-31 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 05/11] powerpc: reverse the soft_enable logic Madhavan Srinivasan
2016-07-31 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 06/11] powerpc: Avoid using EXCEPTION_PROLOG_1 macro in MASKABLE_* Madhavan Srinivasan
2016-07-31 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 07/11] powerpc: Add new _EXCEPTION_PROLOG_1 macro Madhavan Srinivasan
2016-07-31 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 08/11] powerpc: Add "mask_lvl" paramater to MASKABLE_* macros Madhavan Srinivasan
2016-08-01 5:21 ` Nicholas Piggin [this message]
2016-08-01 5:49 ` Madhavan Srinivasan
2016-07-31 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 09/11] powerpc: Add support to mask perf interrupts Madhavan Srinivasan
2016-08-01 5:29 ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-08-01 6:09 ` Madhavan Srinivasan
2016-08-01 6:48 ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-07-31 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 10/11] powerpc: Support to replay PMIs Madhavan Srinivasan
2016-08-01 8:07 ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-08-01 8:51 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2016-08-01 10:22 ` Madhavan Srinivasan
2016-08-01 10:43 ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-08-01 8:52 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2016-07-31 19:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 11/11] powerpc: rewrite local_t using soft_irq Madhavan Srinivasan
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=20160801152100.55b6c5f1@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com \
--to=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulus@samba.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).