From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
bhelgaas@google.com, ravikanth.nalla@hpe.com,
linux@rainbow-software.org, timur@codeaurora.org,
cov@codeaurora.org, jcm@redhat.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com,
x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, agross@codeaurora.org,
Robert Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com>,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, wim@djo.tudelft.nl,
devel@acpica.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/3] Revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: separate ISA penalty calculation"
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:58:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8dcd59ac-815b-da71-a3f2-ba533c4182c9@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161021023109.GD31044@localhost>
On 10/20/2016 7:31 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> Let's try to simplify the code one more time to share code.
> I'm sort of OK with this, but it's not exactly a revert of the above
> (the commits you mention don't check "link->irq.initialized == 1".
I can split the initialized bit. If I remove it from this commit, it can
break the git bisect. That's why, I folded it into this review. I
briefly mentioned about it in the cover letter. It might not be quiet
clear.
>
> Previously acpi_irq_penalty_init() looked at _PRS info ("possible"
> IRQs), but now we won't. Maybe that's good; I dunno. But it should
> be mentioned.
I'm directing all IRQs to acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty function.
acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty checks for the possible values here from
_PRS.
/*
* penalize the IRQs PCI might use, but not as severely.
*/
for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++)
if (link->irq.possible[i] == irq)
penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE /
link->irq.possible_count;
>
> And I don't think it fixes a user-visible problem, so it doesn't need
> to be applied immediately. I'm not sure this is worth doing by
> itself; maybe it should wait until we can do more cleanup and think
> about all these issues together?
>
It does fix the PCI_USING penalty assignment.
if (link->irq.active && link->irq.active == irq)
penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
If we drop this patch, then we need
[PATCH V3 1/3] ACPI, PCI IRQ: add PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2547605
as somebody needs to increment the penalty with PCI_USING when IRQ is assigned
for a given ISA IRQ.
We might as well take [PATCH V4 1/3], [PATCH V4 2/3] and [PATCH V3 1/3]
for this regression.
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: okaya@codeaurora.org (Sinan Kaya)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH V4 3/3] Revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: separate ISA penalty calculation"
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:58:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8dcd59ac-815b-da71-a3f2-ba533c4182c9@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161021023109.GD31044@localhost>
On 10/20/2016 7:31 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> Let's try to simplify the code one more time to share code.
> I'm sort of OK with this, but it's not exactly a revert of the above
> (the commits you mention don't check "link->irq.initialized == 1".
I can split the initialized bit. If I remove it from this commit, it can
break the git bisect. That's why, I folded it into this review. I
briefly mentioned about it in the cover letter. It might not be quiet
clear.
>
> Previously acpi_irq_penalty_init() looked at _PRS info ("possible"
> IRQs), but now we won't. Maybe that's good; I dunno. But it should
> be mentioned.
I'm directing all IRQs to acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty function.
acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty checks for the possible values here from
_PRS.
/*
* penalize the IRQs PCI might use, but not as severely.
*/
for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++)
if (link->irq.possible[i] == irq)
penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE /
link->irq.possible_count;
>
> And I don't think it fixes a user-visible problem, so it doesn't need
> to be applied immediately. I'm not sure this is worth doing by
> itself; maybe it should wait until we can do more cleanup and think
> about all these issues together?
>
It does fix the PCI_USING penalty assignment.
if (link->irq.active && link->irq.active == irq)
penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
If we drop this patch, then we need
[PATCH V3 1/3] ACPI, PCI IRQ: add PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2547605
as somebody needs to increment the penalty with PCI_USING when IRQ is assigned
for a given ISA IRQ.
We might as well take [PATCH V4 1/3], [PATCH V4 2/3] and [PATCH V3 1/3]
for this regression.
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-21 2:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-19 22:21 [PATCH V4 0/3] ACPI,PCI,IRQ: revert penalty calculation for ISA and SCI interrupts Sinan Kaya
2016-10-19 22:21 ` [PATCH V4 0/3] ACPI, PCI, IRQ: " Sinan Kaya
2016-10-19 22:21 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-10-19 22:21 ` [PATCH V4 1/3] ACPI, PCI, IRQ: assign ISA IRQ directly during early boot stages Sinan Kaya
2016-10-19 22:21 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-10-19 22:21 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-10-20 21:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-10-20 21:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-10-24 3:48 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-10-24 3:48 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-10-21 1:39 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-10-21 1:39 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-10-21 14:07 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-10-21 14:07 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-10-24 3:22 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-10-24 3:22 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-10-23 3:48 ` [V4, " Jonathan Liu
2016-10-23 3:48 ` Jonathan Liu
2016-10-24 4:17 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-10-24 4:17 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-10-24 4:21 ` Jonathan Liu
2016-10-24 4:21 ` Jonathan Liu
2016-10-19 22:21 ` [PATCH V4 2/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function" Sinan Kaya
2016-10-19 22:21 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-10-19 22:21 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-10-21 1:58 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-10-21 1:58 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-10-21 14:45 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-10-21 14:45 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-10-21 16:13 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-10-21 16:13 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-10-22 14:57 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-10-22 14:57 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-10-24 3:48 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-10-24 3:48 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-10-22 23:28 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-10-22 23:28 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-10-24 3:48 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-10-24 3:48 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-10-23 3:49 ` [V4,2/3] " Jonathan Liu
2016-10-23 3:49 ` Jonathan Liu
2016-10-19 22:21 ` [PATCH V4 3/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: separate ISA penalty calculation" Sinan Kaya
2016-10-19 22:21 ` [PATCH V4 3/3] Revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: " Sinan Kaya
2016-10-19 22:21 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-10-21 2:31 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-10-21 2:31 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-10-21 2:58 ` Sinan Kaya [this message]
2016-10-21 2:58 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-10-22 23:59 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-10-22 23:59 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-10-24 4:16 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-10-24 4:16 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-10-23 3:49 ` [V4,3/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: " Jonathan Liu
2016-10-23 3:49 ` Jonathan Liu
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=8dcd59ac-815b-da71-a3f2-ba533c4182c9@codeaurora.org \
--to=okaya@codeaurora.org \
--cc=agross@codeaurora.org \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=cov@codeaurora.org \
--cc=devel@acpica.org \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jcm@redhat.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@rainbow-software.org \
--cc=lv.zheng@intel.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=ravikanth.nalla@hpe.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=robert.moore@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=timur@codeaurora.org \
--cc=wim@djo.tudelft.nl \
--cc=x86@kernel.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.