From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCHv2 7/8] arm_pmu: note IRQs and PMUs per-cpu
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:11:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180214131141.GF2992@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180205164202.26502-8-mark.rutland@arm.com>
On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 04:42:01PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> index 72118e6f9122..023a8ebdace6 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> @@ -25,6 +25,9 @@
>
> #include <asm/irq_regs.h>
>
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct arm_pmu *, cpu_armpmu);
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, cpu_irq);
> +
> static int
> armpmu_map_cache_event(const unsigned (*cache_map)
> [PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_MAX]
> @@ -325,13 +328,9 @@ static irqreturn_t armpmu_dispatch_irq(int irq, void *dev)
> int ret;
> u64 start_clock, finish_clock;
>
> - /*
> - * we request the IRQ with a (possibly percpu) struct arm_pmu**, but
> - * the handlers expect a struct arm_pmu*. The percpu_irq framework will
> - * do any necessary shifting, we just need to perform the first
> - * dereference.
> - */
> - armpmu = *(void **)dev;
> + armpmu = this_cpu_read(cpu_armpmu);
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!armpmu))
> + return IRQ_NONE;
>
> start_clock = sched_clock();
> ret = armpmu->handle_irq(irq, armpmu);
> @@ -517,29 +516,47 @@ int perf_num_counters(void)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(perf_num_counters);
>
> -void armpmu_free_irq(struct arm_pmu *armpmu, int cpu)
> +int armpmu_count_irq_users(const int irq)
This can be static.
> {
> - struct pmu_hw_events __percpu *hw_events = armpmu->hw_events;
> - int irq = per_cpu(hw_events->irq, cpu);
> + int cpu, count = 0;
> +
> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> + if (per_cpu(cpu_irq, cpu) == irq)
> + count++;
> + }
>
> - if (!cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(cpu, &armpmu->active_irqs))
> + return count;
> +}
> +
> +void armpmu_free_cpu_irq(int irq, int cpu)
> +{
> + if (per_cpu(cpu_irq, cpu) == 0)
> + return;
> + if (WARN_ON(irq != per_cpu(cpu_irq, cpu)))
> return;
>
> if (irq_is_percpu_devid(irq)) {
> - free_percpu_irq(irq, &hw_events->percpu_pmu);
> - cpumask_clear(&armpmu->active_irqs);
> - return;
> + if (armpmu_count_irq_users(irq) == 1)
> + free_percpu_irq(irq, &cpu_armpmu);
> + } else {
> + free_irq(irq, NULL);
> }
>
> - free_irq(irq, per_cpu_ptr(&hw_events->percpu_pmu, cpu));
> + per_cpu(cpu_irq, cpu) = 0;
> }
>
> -int armpmu_request_irq(struct arm_pmu *armpmu, int cpu)
> +void armpmu_free_irq(struct arm_pmu *armpmu, int cpu)
> {
> - int err = 0;
> struct pmu_hw_events __percpu *hw_events = armpmu->hw_events;
> - const irq_handler_t handler = armpmu_dispatch_irq;
> int irq = per_cpu(hw_events->irq, cpu);
> +
> + armpmu_free_cpu_irq(irq, cpu);
> +}
> +
> +int armpmu_request_cpu_irq(int irq, int cpu)
> +{
> + int err = 0;
> + const irq_handler_t handler = armpmu_dispatch_irq;
> if (!irq)
> return 0;
>
> @@ -560,16 +577,16 @@ int armpmu_request_irq(struct arm_pmu *armpmu, int cpu)
>
> irq_set_status_flags(irq, IRQ_NOAUTOEN);
> err = request_irq(irq, handler, irq_flags, "arm-pmu",
> - per_cpu_ptr(&hw_events->percpu_pmu, cpu));
> - } else if (cpumask_empty(&armpmu->active_irqs)) {
> + NULL);
> + } else if (armpmu_count_irq_users(irq) == 0) {
> err = request_percpu_irq(irq, handler, "arm-pmu",
> - &hw_events->percpu_pmu);
> + cpu_armpmu);
This should be &cpu_armpmu.
Would it be possible to pass &cpu_armpmu as the devid even in the normal
request_irq case and have the dispatcher just pass it through to the
underlying handler, rather than access cpu_armpmu directly?
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-14 13:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-05 16:41 [PATCHv2 0/8] arm_pmu: fix lockdep issues with ACPI systems Mark Rutland
2018-02-05 16:41 ` [PATCHv2 1/8] ARM: ux500: remove PMU IRQ bouncer Mark Rutland
2018-02-05 19:05 ` Linus Walleij
2018-02-06 11:26 ` Mark Rutland
2018-02-05 16:41 ` [PATCHv2 2/8] arm_pmu: kill arm_pmu_platdata Mark Rutland
2018-02-05 16:41 ` [PATCHv2 3/8] arm_pmu: fold platform helpers into platform code Mark Rutland
2018-02-05 16:41 ` [PATCHv2 4/8] arm_pmu: add armpmu_alloc_atomic() Mark Rutland
2018-02-05 16:41 ` [PATCHv2 5/8] arm_pmu: acpi: check for mismatched PPIs Mark Rutland
2018-02-05 16:42 ` [PATCHv2 6/8] arm_pmu: explicitly enable/disable SPIs at hotplug Mark Rutland
2018-02-26 15:16 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-02-26 15:16 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-02-26 15:22 ` Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:22 ` Will Deacon
2018-02-26 15:56 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-02-26 15:56 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-02-26 16:01 ` Mark Rutland
2018-02-26 16:01 ` Mark Rutland
2018-02-05 16:42 ` [PATCHv2 7/8] arm_pmu: note IRQs and PMUs per-cpu Mark Rutland
2018-02-05 17:07 ` Robin Murphy
2018-02-05 17:13 ` Mark Rutland
2018-02-14 13:11 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2018-02-14 13:24 ` Mark Rutland
2018-02-14 13:26 ` Will Deacon
2018-02-14 13:45 ` Mark Rutland
2018-02-14 18:22 ` Mark Rutland
2018-02-05 16:42 ` [PATCHv2 8/8] arm_pmu: acpi: request IRQs up-front Mark Rutland
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=20180214131141.GF2992@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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.