All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	"linux-sh@vger.kernel.org" <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] ARM64: get rid of arch_cpu_idle_prepare()
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 15:57:55 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140127155755.GH32608@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.11.1401271047240.1652@knanqh.ubzr>

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 03:51:02PM +0000, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 06:08:17AM +0000, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > ARM and ARM64 are the only two architectures implementing
> > > arch_cpu_idle_prepare() simply to call local_fiq_enable().
> > > 
> > > We have secondary_start_kernel() already calling local_fiq_enable() and
> > > this is done a second time in arch_cpu_idle_prepare() in that case. And
> > > enabling FIQs has nothing to do with idling the CPU to start with.
> > > 
> > > So let's introduce init_fiq_boot_cpu() to take care of FIQs on the boot
> > > CPU and remove arch_cpu_idle_prepare(). This is now done a bit earlier
> > > at late_initcall time but this shouldn't make a difference in practice
> > > given that FIQs are not currently used on ARM64.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>
> > 
> > For arm64, we could simply remove any reference to FIQs. I'm not aware
> > of anyone using them.
> 
> OK. What if I sumply remove arch_cpu_idle_prepare() and let you do the 
> remove the rest?
> 
> IMHO I'd simply remove local_fiq_{enable/disable}() from 
> arm64/kernel/smp.c and leave the infrastructure in place in case someone 
> needs it eventually.  In which case I could include that into my patch 
> as well.

Sounds good. We can keep the local_fiq_*() functions but remove about 4
calling sites (process.c and smp.c) until needed.

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] ARM64: get rid of arch_cpu_idle_prepare()
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 15:57:55 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140127155755.GH32608@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.11.1401271047240.1652@knanqh.ubzr>

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 03:51:02PM +0000, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 06:08:17AM +0000, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > ARM and ARM64 are the only two architectures implementing
> > > arch_cpu_idle_prepare() simply to call local_fiq_enable().
> > > 
> > > We have secondary_start_kernel() already calling local_fiq_enable() and
> > > this is done a second time in arch_cpu_idle_prepare() in that case. And
> > > enabling FIQs has nothing to do with idling the CPU to start with.
> > > 
> > > So let's introduce init_fiq_boot_cpu() to take care of FIQs on the boot
> > > CPU and remove arch_cpu_idle_prepare(). This is now done a bit earlier
> > > at late_initcall time but this shouldn't make a difference in practice
> > > given that FIQs are not currently used on ARM64.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>
> > 
> > For arm64, we could simply remove any reference to FIQs. I'm not aware
> > of anyone using them.
> 
> OK. What if I sumply remove arch_cpu_idle_prepare() and let you do the 
> remove the rest?
> 
> IMHO I'd simply remove local_fiq_{enable/disable}() from 
> arm64/kernel/smp.c and leave the infrastructure in place in case someone 
> needs it eventually.  In which case I could include that into my patch 
> as well.

Sounds good. We can keep the local_fiq_*() functions but remove about 4
calling sites (process.c and smp.c) until needed.

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
Cc: "linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>,
	Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-sh@vger.kernel.org" <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] ARM64: get rid of arch_cpu_idle_prepare()
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 15:57:55 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140127155755.GH32608@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.11.1401271047240.1652@knanqh.ubzr>

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 03:51:02PM +0000, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 06:08:17AM +0000, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > ARM and ARM64 are the only two architectures implementing
> > > arch_cpu_idle_prepare() simply to call local_fiq_enable().
> > > 
> > > We have secondary_start_kernel() already calling local_fiq_enable() and
> > > this is done a second time in arch_cpu_idle_prepare() in that case. And
> > > enabling FIQs has nothing to do with idling the CPU to start with.
> > > 
> > > So let's introduce init_fiq_boot_cpu() to take care of FIQs on the boot
> > > CPU and remove arch_cpu_idle_prepare(). This is now done a bit earlier
> > > at late_initcall time but this shouldn't make a difference in practice
> > > given that FIQs are not currently used on ARM64.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>
> > 
> > For arm64, we could simply remove any reference to FIQs. I'm not aware
> > of anyone using them.
> 
> OK. What if I sumply remove arch_cpu_idle_prepare() and let you do the 
> remove the rest?
> 
> IMHO I'd simply remove local_fiq_{enable/disable}() from 
> arm64/kernel/smp.c and leave the infrastructure in place in case someone 
> needs it eventually.  In which case I could include that into my patch 
> as well.

Sounds good. We can keep the local_fiq_*() functions but remove about 4
calling sites (process.c and smp.c) until needed.

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/9] ARM64: get rid of arch_cpu_idle_prepare()
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 15:57:55 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140127155755.GH32608@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.11.1401271047240.1652@knanqh.ubzr>

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 03:51:02PM +0000, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 06:08:17AM +0000, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > ARM and ARM64 are the only two architectures implementing
> > > arch_cpu_idle_prepare() simply to call local_fiq_enable().
> > > 
> > > We have secondary_start_kernel() already calling local_fiq_enable() and
> > > this is done a second time in arch_cpu_idle_prepare() in that case. And
> > > enabling FIQs has nothing to do with idling the CPU to start with.
> > > 
> > > So let's introduce init_fiq_boot_cpu() to take care of FIQs on the boot
> > > CPU and remove arch_cpu_idle_prepare(). This is now done a bit earlier
> > > at late_initcall time but this shouldn't make a difference in practice
> > > given that FIQs are not currently used on ARM64.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>
> > 
> > For arm64, we could simply remove any reference to FIQs. I'm not aware
> > of anyone using them.
> 
> OK. What if I sumply remove arch_cpu_idle_prepare() and let you do the 
> remove the rest?
> 
> IMHO I'd simply remove local_fiq_{enable/disable}() from 
> arm64/kernel/smp.c and leave the infrastructure in place in case someone 
> needs it eventually.  In which case I could include that into my patch 
> as well.

Sounds good. We can keep the local_fiq_*() functions but remove about 4
calling sites (process.c and smp.c) until needed.

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin

  reply	other threads:[~2014-01-27 15:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 132+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-01-27  6:08 [PATCH 0/9] setting the table for integration of cpuidle with the scheduler Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08 ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08 ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08 ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08 ` [PATCH 1/9] ARM: get rid of arch_cpu_idle_prepare() Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  8:22   ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:22     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:22     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:22     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27 16:07     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-27 16:07       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-27 16:07       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-27 16:07       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-27 17:12       ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27 17:12         ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27 17:12         ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27 17:12         ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27 17:21         ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-27 17:21           ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-27 17:21           ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-27 17:21           ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-27 17:30           ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27 17:30             ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27 17:30             ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27 17:30             ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27 17:35           ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-27 17:35             ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-27 17:35             ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-27 17:35             ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-27 17:35             ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-27 12:45   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-27 12:45     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-27 12:45     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-27 12:45     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-27 15:45     ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27 15:45       ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27 15:45       ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27 15:45       ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27 16:06       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-27 16:06         ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-27 16:06         ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-27 16:06         ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-01-27 17:36         ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27 17:36           ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27 17:36           ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27 17:36           ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08 ` [PATCH 2/9] ARM64: " Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  8:23   ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:23     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:23     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:23     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27 15:43   ` Catalin Marinas
2014-01-27 15:43     ` Catalin Marinas
2014-01-27 15:43     ` Catalin Marinas
2014-01-27 15:43     ` Catalin Marinas
2014-01-27 15:51     ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27 15:51       ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27 15:51       ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27 15:51       ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27 15:57       ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2014-01-27 15:57         ` Catalin Marinas
2014-01-27 15:57         ` Catalin Marinas
2014-01-27 15:57         ` Catalin Marinas
2014-01-29 18:00         ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-30 11:36           ` Catalin Marinas
2014-01-27  6:08 ` [PATCH 3/9] idle: no more arch_cpu_idle_prepare() users Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  8:24   ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:24     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:24     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:24     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  6:08 ` [PATCH 4/9] idle: move the cpuidle entry point to the generic idle loop Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  8:32   ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:32     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:32     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:32     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  6:08 ` [PATCH 5/9] ARM: remove redundant cpuidle_idle_call() Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  8:33   ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:33     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:33     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:33     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  6:08 ` [PATCH 6/9] PPC: " Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  8:35   ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:35     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:35     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:35     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27 11:59   ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-01-27 12:11     ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-01-27 11:59     ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-01-27 11:59     ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-01-27  6:08 ` [PATCH 7/9] SH: " Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  8:35   ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:35     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:35     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:35     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  6:08 ` [PATCH 8/9] X86: " Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  8:43   ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:43     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:43     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  8:43     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-27  6:08 ` [PATCH 9/9] cpu/idle.c: move to sched/idle.c Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27  6:08   ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-01-27 12:47 ` [PATCH 0/9] setting the table for integration of cpuidle with the scheduler Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-27 12:47   ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-27 12:47   ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-27 12:47   ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-27 12:47   ` Peter Zijlstra

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=20140127155755.GH32608@arm.com \
    --to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
    --cc=lethal@linux-sh.org \
    --cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=nicolas.pitre@linaro.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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.