* [PATCH V5 0/2] genirq: arm64: perf: support for percpu pmu interrupt @ 2013-11-25 9:45 Vinayak Kale 2013-11-25 9:45 ` [PATCH V5 1/2] genirq: Add an accessor for IRQ_PER_CPU flag Vinayak Kale 2013-11-25 9:45 ` [PATCH V5 2/2] arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt Vinayak Kale 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Vinayak Kale @ 2013-11-25 9:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel This patch series adds support to handle interrupt registration/deregistration in arm64 pmu driver when pmu interrupt type is percpu. Changelog: V5: * In irqdesc.h: Added Chris Smith's sign-off. In arm64 pmu driver: Handle the invalid irq-0 case for platform_get_irq(). V4: * In arm64 pmu driver: Avoid using irq_to_desc() to check validity of irq. V3: * Remove validity check for 'desc' from accessor function in irqdesc.h . Instead, check the irq 'desc' validity in arm64 pmu driver. V2: * To determine whether an IRQ is percpu or not, added an accessor function in irqdesc.h . This approach was used by Chris Smith here[1] for similar changes in arm pmu driver. * In arm64 pmu driver: Got rid of unnecessary pointer typecastings. [1] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1207.3/02955.html Vinayak Kale (2): genirq: Add an accessor for IRQ_PER_CPU flag arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 108 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- include/linux/irqdesc.h | 8 +++ 2 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) -- 1.7.9.5 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH V5 1/2] genirq: Add an accessor for IRQ_PER_CPU flag 2013-11-25 9:45 [PATCH V5 0/2] genirq: arm64: perf: support for percpu pmu interrupt Vinayak Kale @ 2013-11-25 9:45 ` Vinayak Kale 2013-11-25 9:45 ` [PATCH V5 2/2] arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt Vinayak Kale 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Vinayak Kale @ 2013-11-25 9:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel This patch adds an accessor function for IRQ_PER_CPU flag. The accessor function is useful to determine whether an IRQ is percpu or not. This patch is based on an older patch posted by Chris Smith here [1]. There is a minor change w.r.t. Chris's original patch: I have kept the accessor function name as 'irq_is_percpu' instead of 'irq_is_per_cpu'. [1]: http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1207.3/02955.html Signed-off-by: Chris Smith <chris.smith@st.com> Signed-off-by: Vinayak Kale <vkale@apm.com> --- include/linux/irqdesc.h | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/include/linux/irqdesc.h b/include/linux/irqdesc.h index 56fb646..26e2661 100644 --- a/include/linux/irqdesc.h +++ b/include/linux/irqdesc.h @@ -152,6 +152,14 @@ static inline int irq_balancing_disabled(unsigned int irq) return desc->status_use_accessors & IRQ_NO_BALANCING_MASK; } +static inline int irq_is_percpu(unsigned int irq) +{ + struct irq_desc *desc; + + desc = irq_to_desc(irq); + return desc->status_use_accessors & IRQ_PER_CPU; +} + static inline void irq_set_lockdep_class(unsigned int irq, struct lock_class_key *class) { -- 1.7.9.5 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH V5 2/2] arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt 2013-11-25 9:45 [PATCH V5 0/2] genirq: arm64: perf: support for percpu pmu interrupt Vinayak Kale 2013-11-25 9:45 ` [PATCH V5 1/2] genirq: Add an accessor for IRQ_PER_CPU flag Vinayak Kale @ 2013-11-25 9:45 ` Vinayak Kale 2013-11-25 18:41 ` Will Deacon 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Vinayak Kale @ 2013-11-25 9:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel Add support for irq registration when pmu interrupt is percpu. Signed-off-by: Vinayak Kale <vkale@apm.com> Signed-off-by: Tuan Phan <tphan@apm.com> --- arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 108 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c index cea1594..a2efab3 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ #include <linux/bitmap.h> #include <linux/interrupt.h> +#include <linux/irq.h> #include <linux/kernel.h> #include <linux/export.h> #include <linux/perf_event.h> @@ -363,22 +364,55 @@ validate_group(struct perf_event *event) } static void +armpmu_disable_percpu_irq(void *data) +{ + struct arm_pmu *armpmu = data; + struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device; + int irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0); + + cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &armpmu->active_irqs); + disable_percpu_irq(irq); +} + +static void armpmu_release_hardware(struct arm_pmu *armpmu) { int i, irq, irqs; struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device; irqs = min(pmu_device->num_resources, num_possible_cpus()); + if (irqs < 1) + return; - for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) { - if (!cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(i, &armpmu->active_irqs)) - continue; - irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, i); - if (irq >= 0) - free_irq(irq, armpmu); + irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0); + if (irq <= 0) + return; + + if (irq_is_percpu(irq)) { + on_each_cpu(armpmu_disable_percpu_irq, armpmu, 1); + free_percpu_irq(irq, &cpu_hw_events); + } else { + for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) { + if (!cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(i, &armpmu->active_irqs)) + continue; + irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, i); + if (irq > 0) + free_irq(irq, armpmu); + } } } +static void +armpmu_enable_percpu_irq(void *data) +{ + struct arm_pmu *armpmu = data; + struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device; + int irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0); + + enable_percpu_irq(irq, 0); + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &armpmu->active_irqs); +} + static int armpmu_reserve_hardware(struct arm_pmu *armpmu) { @@ -396,34 +430,54 @@ armpmu_reserve_hardware(struct arm_pmu *armpmu) return -ENODEV; } - for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) { - err = 0; - irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, i); - if (irq < 0) - continue; + irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0); + if (irq <= 0) { + pr_err("failed to get valid irq for PMU device\n"); + return -ENODEV; + } - /* - * If we have a single PMU interrupt that we can't shift, - * assume that we're running on a uniprocessor machine and - * continue. Otherwise, continue without this interrupt. - */ - if (irq_set_affinity(irq, cpumask_of(i)) && irqs > 1) { - pr_warning("unable to set irq affinity (irq=%d, cpu=%u)\n", - irq, i); - continue; - } + if (irq_is_percpu(irq)) { + err = request_percpu_irq(irq, armpmu->handle_irq, + "arm-pmu", &cpu_hw_events); - err = request_irq(irq, armpmu->handle_irq, - IRQF_NOBALANCING, - "arm-pmu", armpmu); if (err) { - pr_err("unable to request IRQ%d for ARM PMU counters\n", - irq); + pr_err("unable to request percpu IRQ%d for ARM PMU counters\n", + irq); armpmu_release_hardware(armpmu); return err; } - cpumask_set_cpu(i, &armpmu->active_irqs); + on_each_cpu(armpmu_enable_percpu_irq, armpmu, 1); + } else { + for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) { + err = 0; + irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, i); + if (irq <= 0) + continue; + + /* + * If we have a single PMU interrupt that we can't shift, + * assume that we're running on a uniprocessor machine and + * continue. Otherwise, continue without this interrupt. + */ + if (irq_set_affinity(irq, cpumask_of(i)) && irqs > 1) { + pr_warning("unable to set irq affinity (irq=%d, cpu=%u)\n", + irq, i); + continue; + } + + err = request_irq(irq, armpmu->handle_irq, + IRQF_NOBALANCING, + "arm-pmu", armpmu); + if (err) { + pr_err("unable to request IRQ%d for ARM PMU counters\n", + irq); + armpmu_release_hardware(armpmu); + return err; + } + + cpumask_set_cpu(i, &armpmu->active_irqs); + } } return 0; -- 1.7.9.5 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH V5 2/2] arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt 2013-11-25 9:45 ` [PATCH V5 2/2] arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt Vinayak Kale @ 2013-11-25 18:41 ` Will Deacon 2013-11-26 8:44 ` Vinayak Kale 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2013-11-25 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 09:45:53AM +0000, Vinayak Kale wrote: > Add support for irq registration when pmu interrupt is percpu. > > Signed-off-by: Vinayak Kale <vkale@apm.com> > Signed-off-by: Tuan Phan <tphan@apm.com> > --- > arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 108 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c > index cea1594..a2efab3 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c > @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ > > #include <linux/bitmap.h> > #include <linux/interrupt.h> > +#include <linux/irq.h> > #include <linux/kernel.h> > #include <linux/export.h> > #include <linux/perf_event.h> > @@ -363,22 +364,55 @@ validate_group(struct perf_event *event) > } > > static void > +armpmu_disable_percpu_irq(void *data) > +{ > + struct arm_pmu *armpmu = data; > + struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device; > + int irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0); > + > + cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &armpmu->active_irqs); > + disable_percpu_irq(irq); > +} > + > +static void > armpmu_release_hardware(struct arm_pmu *armpmu) > { > int i, irq, irqs; > struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device; > > irqs = min(pmu_device->num_resources, num_possible_cpus()); > + if (irqs < 1) Can you just make irqs unsigned, then do if (!irqs) instead? > + return; > > - for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) { > - if (!cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(i, &armpmu->active_irqs)) > - continue; > - irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, i); > - if (irq >= 0) > - free_irq(irq, armpmu); > + irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0); > + if (irq <= 0) > + return; > + > + if (irq_is_percpu(irq)) { > + on_each_cpu(armpmu_disable_percpu_irq, armpmu, 1); > + free_percpu_irq(irq, &cpu_hw_events); > + } else { > + for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) { > + if (!cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(i, &armpmu->active_irqs)) > + continue; > + irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, i); > + if (irq > 0) > + free_irq(irq, armpmu); > + } > } > } > > +static void > +armpmu_enable_percpu_irq(void *data) > +{ > + struct arm_pmu *armpmu = data; > + struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device; > + int irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0); > + > + enable_percpu_irq(irq, 0); IRQ_TYPE_NONE? > + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &armpmu->active_irqs); > +} > + > static int > armpmu_reserve_hardware(struct arm_pmu *armpmu) > { > @@ -396,34 +430,54 @@ armpmu_reserve_hardware(struct arm_pmu *armpmu) > return -ENODEV; > } > > - for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) { > - err = 0; > - irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, i); > - if (irq < 0) > - continue; > + irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0); > + if (irq <= 0) { > + pr_err("failed to get valid irq for PMU device\n"); > + return -ENODEV; > + } > > - /* > - * If we have a single PMU interrupt that we can't shift, > - * assume that we're running on a uniprocessor machine and > - * continue. Otherwise, continue without this interrupt. > - */ > - if (irq_set_affinity(irq, cpumask_of(i)) && irqs > 1) { > - pr_warning("unable to set irq affinity (irq=%d, cpu=%u)\n", > - irq, i); > - continue; > - } > + if (irq_is_percpu(irq)) { > + err = request_percpu_irq(irq, armpmu->handle_irq, > + "arm-pmu", &cpu_hw_events); This is a bit of a kludge passing in the cpu_hw_events as the per-cpu token, but I guess that will do for now. There is potential for something like a master-aware L2 PMU which uses PPIs and expects to pass something different back to the IRQ handler. Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH V5 2/2] arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt 2013-11-25 18:41 ` Will Deacon @ 2013-11-26 8:44 ` Vinayak Kale 2013-11-29 18:48 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Vinayak Kale @ 2013-11-26 8:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 09:45:53AM +0000, Vinayak Kale wrote: >> Add support for irq registration when pmu interrupt is percpu. >> >> Signed-off-by: Vinayak Kale <vkale@apm.com> >> Signed-off-by: Tuan Phan <tphan@apm.com> >> --- >> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 108 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- >> 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c >> index cea1594..a2efab3 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c >> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ >> >> #include <linux/bitmap.h> >> #include <linux/interrupt.h> >> +#include <linux/irq.h> >> #include <linux/kernel.h> >> #include <linux/export.h> >> #include <linux/perf_event.h> >> @@ -363,22 +364,55 @@ validate_group(struct perf_event *event) >> } >> >> static void >> +armpmu_disable_percpu_irq(void *data) >> +{ >> + struct arm_pmu *armpmu = data; >> + struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device; >> + int irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0); >> + >> + cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &armpmu->active_irqs); >> + disable_percpu_irq(irq); >> +} >> + >> +static void >> armpmu_release_hardware(struct arm_pmu *armpmu) >> { >> int i, irq, irqs; >> struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device; >> >> irqs = min(pmu_device->num_resources, num_possible_cpus()); >> + if (irqs < 1) > > Can you just make irqs unsigned, then do if (!irqs) instead? Okay. I will also modify already existing similar check in function 'armpmu_reserve_hardware'. > >> + return; >> >> - for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) { >> - if (!cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(i, &armpmu->active_irqs)) >> - continue; >> - irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, i); >> - if (irq >= 0) >> - free_irq(irq, armpmu); >> + irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0); >> + if (irq <= 0) >> + return; >> + >> + if (irq_is_percpu(irq)) { >> + on_each_cpu(armpmu_disable_percpu_irq, armpmu, 1); >> + free_percpu_irq(irq, &cpu_hw_events); >> + } else { >> + for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) { >> + if (!cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(i, &armpmu->active_irqs)) >> + continue; >> + irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, i); >> + if (irq > 0) >> + free_irq(irq, armpmu); >> + } >> } >> } >> >> +static void >> +armpmu_enable_percpu_irq(void *data) >> +{ >> + struct arm_pmu *armpmu = data; >> + struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device; >> + int irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0); >> + >> + enable_percpu_irq(irq, 0); > > IRQ_TYPE_NONE? Did you mean to use macro instead or 0? If yes, I will modify. Or, are you asking why are we using 0? For this part here is my comment: Inside GIC it's 'implementation specific' whether to allow configuration of level/edge type for PPIs. So maybe we should leave it to boot-loader to do such config if any such explicit config is needed. Passing 0 (=IRQ_TYPE_NONE) to 'enable_percpu_irq' ensures that kernel doesn't touch the existing configuration. I observed that arm arch timer code also passes 0 (IRQ_TYPE_NONE) to 'enable_percpu_irq'. > >> + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &armpmu->active_irqs); >> +} >> + >> static int >> armpmu_reserve_hardware(struct arm_pmu *armpmu) >> { >> @@ -396,34 +430,54 @@ armpmu_reserve_hardware(struct arm_pmu *armpmu) >> return -ENODEV; >> } >> >> - for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) { >> - err = 0; >> - irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, i); >> - if (irq < 0) >> - continue; >> + irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0); >> + if (irq <= 0) { >> + pr_err("failed to get valid irq for PMU device\n"); >> + return -ENODEV; >> + } >> >> - /* >> - * If we have a single PMU interrupt that we can't shift, >> - * assume that we're running on a uniprocessor machine and >> - * continue. Otherwise, continue without this interrupt. >> - */ >> - if (irq_set_affinity(irq, cpumask_of(i)) && irqs > 1) { >> - pr_warning("unable to set irq affinity (irq=%d, cpu=%u)\n", >> - irq, i); >> - continue; >> - } >> + if (irq_is_percpu(irq)) { >> + err = request_percpu_irq(irq, armpmu->handle_irq, >> + "arm-pmu", &cpu_hw_events); > > This is a bit of a kludge passing in the cpu_hw_events as the per-cpu token, > but I guess that will do for now. There is potential for something like a > master-aware L2 PMU which uses PPIs and expects to pass something different > back to the IRQ handler. > > Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH V5 2/2] arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt 2013-11-26 8:44 ` Vinayak Kale @ 2013-11-29 18:48 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2013-11-29 18:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 08:44:24AM +0000, Vinayak Kale wrote: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 09:45:53AM +0000, Vinayak Kale wrote: > >> +static void > >> +armpmu_enable_percpu_irq(void *data) > >> +{ > >> + struct arm_pmu *armpmu = data; > >> + struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device; > >> + int irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0); > >> + > >> + enable_percpu_irq(irq, 0); > > > > IRQ_TYPE_NONE? > > Did you mean to use macro instead or 0? If yes, I will modify. Yes. Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-11-29 18:48 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2013-11-25 9:45 [PATCH V5 0/2] genirq: arm64: perf: support for percpu pmu interrupt Vinayak Kale 2013-11-25 9:45 ` [PATCH V5 1/2] genirq: Add an accessor for IRQ_PER_CPU flag Vinayak Kale 2013-11-25 9:45 ` [PATCH V5 2/2] arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt Vinayak Kale 2013-11-25 18:41 ` Will Deacon 2013-11-26 8:44 ` Vinayak Kale 2013-11-29 18:48 ` Will Deacon
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).