From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: ARM Cortex-A7 support in Linux
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 12:50:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51961989.7020409@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130517114827.GI23112@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
On 17/05/13 12:48, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 12:42:11PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 17/05/13 12:36, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:55:00AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 12:47:45PM +0200, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>> It depends which feature you're after. Linux supports the GIC
>>>>> virtualization extensions with KVM, for example. But we don't make any use
>>>>> of other things like priorities, split deactivation/priority drop...
>>>>
>>>> Not that we could make use of priorities anymore as all interrupt handlers
>>>> are now run with IRQs disabled; an IRQ handler can't be interrupted by a
>>>> higher priority IRQ coming in.
>>>>
>>>> Part of the solution to that is to go back to the original philosophy of
>>>> IRQ handling in Linux - do the least possible amount of work in the IRQ
>>>> and move the heavier stuff off into soft-IRQ context. Unfortunately,
>>>> many drivers are no longer written like that, and just do a great amount
>>>> of time consuming work in their IRQ handler.
>>>
>>> We could also consider using interrupt priorities to have a fake NMI (I
>>> think PPC does this for some cores), which is useful for profiling and
>>> watchdogs, especially now that FIQ is often stolen by the secure world.
>>>
>>> I remember dismissing this in the past because I thought it would increase
>>> our GIC distributor accesses, but I don't remember why.
>>
>> I think it would rather require to write to the interrupt priority mask
>> register (GIC_PMR) in the CPU interface. The cost is probably the same,
>> actually (probably quite high, given how often we enable/disable
>> interrupts).
>
> In terms of the hardware, maybe, but the distributor requires a lock and
> will also trap to the hypervisor if accessed from a guest.
>
> However, since the GIC_PMR is in the CPU interface then that should be fine.
Absolutely. I was just thinking of the respective costs of a device
write vs setting the I bit in CPSR.
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-17 11:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-17 9:56 ARM Cortex-A7 support in Linux Sharma Bhupesh-B45370
2013-05-17 10:47 ` Marc Zyngier
2013-05-17 10:55 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-05-17 11:36 ` Will Deacon
2013-05-17 11:42 ` Marc Zyngier
2013-05-17 11:48 ` Will Deacon
2013-05-17 11:50 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
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=51961989.7020409@arm.com \
--to=marc.zyngier@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.