From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
To: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, santosh.shilimkar@ti.com,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, fweisbec@gmail.com,
john.stultz@linaro.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2][RFC] time : set broadcast irq affinity
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:50:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <512BEAAF.1070500@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130222095530.377fd218@chromoly>
On 02/22/2013 06:55 PM, Jacob Pan wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 23:01:23 +0100
> Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> +/*
>> + * Set broadcast interrupt affinity
>> + */
>> +static void tick_broadcast_set_affinity(struct clock_event_device
>> *bc, int cpu) +{
>> + struct cpumask cpumask;
>> +
>> + if (!(bc->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DYNIRQ))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + cpumask_clear(&cpumask);
>> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpumask);
>> + irq_set_affinity(bc->irq, &cpumask);
> would it be more efficient to keep track of the current bc->irq affinity
> via cpumask then set it only if it is different?
Do you mean a cpumask static variable ? and something like:
if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &affinitymask)) {
cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &affinitymask);
irq_set_affinity(bc->irq, &affinitymask)
}
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (Daniel Lezcano)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2][RFC] time : set broadcast irq affinity
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:50:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <512BEAAF.1070500@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130222095530.377fd218@chromoly>
On 02/22/2013 06:55 PM, Jacob Pan wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 23:01:23 +0100
> Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> +/*
>> + * Set broadcast interrupt affinity
>> + */
>> +static void tick_broadcast_set_affinity(struct clock_event_device
>> *bc, int cpu) +{
>> + struct cpumask cpumask;
>> +
>> + if (!(bc->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DYNIRQ))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + cpumask_clear(&cpumask);
>> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpumask);
>> + irq_set_affinity(bc->irq, &cpumask);
> would it be more efficient to keep track of the current bc->irq affinity
> via cpumask then set it only if it is different?
Do you mean a cpumask static variable ? and something like:
if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &affinitymask)) {
cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &affinitymask);
irq_set_affinity(bc->irq, &affinitymask)
}
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-25 22:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-19 18:02 [resend] Timer broadcast question Daniel Lezcano
2013-02-19 18:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-02-19 18:21 ` Daniel Lezcano
2013-02-19 22:46 ` Andy Lutomirski
2013-02-20 10:09 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-02-21 6:19 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-02-21 6:19 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-02-21 9:01 ` Daniel Lezcano
2013-02-21 9:01 ` Daniel Lezcano
2013-02-21 9:14 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-02-21 9:14 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-02-21 22:01 ` [PATCH 1/2] time : pass broadcast device parameter Daniel Lezcano
2013-02-21 22:01 ` Daniel Lezcano
2013-02-21 22:01 ` [PATCH 2/2][RFC] time : set broadcast irq affinity Daniel Lezcano
2013-02-21 22:01 ` Daniel Lezcano
2013-02-22 17:55 ` Jacob Pan
2013-02-22 17:55 ` Jacob Pan
2013-02-22 18:45 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-02-22 18:45 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-02-25 22:50 ` Daniel Lezcano [this message]
2013-02-25 22:50 ` Daniel Lezcano
2013-02-25 23:00 ` Jacob Pan
2013-02-25 23:00 ` Jacob Pan
2013-02-26 8:45 ` [PATCH 1/2] time : pass broadcast device parameter Viresh Kumar
2013-02-26 8:45 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-02-26 11:30 ` Daniel Lezcano
2013-02-26 11:30 ` Daniel Lezcano
2013-02-26 11:31 ` Daniel Lezcano
2013-02-26 11:31 ` Daniel Lezcano
2013-02-26 12:14 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-02-26 12:14 ` Viresh Kumar
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=512BEAAF.1070500@linaro.org \
--to=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.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=santosh.shilimkar@ti.com \
--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.