From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 010EDEB64D9 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:28:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=wDIFLwXA6R53MzbCDPT5fBhuTIq1HecQWO/DxEGt43Q=; b=QiTfFkgC5Ihqeu l7GLM1UAWtsPM4pQZQXVlwalz8q9iG6HitTNb/GB0bYd+tqXmKVnSoAgewD28dZZ+PWyN2rijgmqk Fspw6oT+UTTLeTUB2h2mqCgLHXUQ3JomGUgQg54ZAQoSZ231FdAg+/w3gLAzJd14oS6Fhbcgc3rky 6m0Wj3kGCAx4lC3wzOOpwmQfH4ALFv3yOQHqojUEbIVJB9ahpZEGAHopNDNlXsrgYb2pk89JUKoZn bfz49EgU2pXUqInTKF45dHmzn7K27Iv1yzWBk/aapQB0hNQk9w/F2/E1+Oo9RwBuLwlrDMu71bbiR 8mzFNXLhyT1yLyK4tEEA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1qGhwX-00Df6P-1e; Tue, 04 Jul 2023 15:27:53 +0000 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org ([2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1qGhwV-00Df5k-0A for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2023 15:27:52 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 952E361283; Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:27:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6DBFCC433C8; Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:27:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1688484470; bh=qUdWowWIkYFtnfXdxb32NHn0VbYNimiXJawRxIFxkSM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=s664yN5VLDy2qSr5Y2mQ2AD6gEkyBn/S9mB+USWiSd7bDDNWQs/9+6rU2ZuojzA2n knYf6brty31tilj4ogSVkCGlUnnbN3brUk4Y8qmosc0w6A+hqmxw+wuVQEr3t03xfz L7jp2GqB0JmhSDQEtkg7qWj5wI4u/qqN2WDefsmtcfhTu3x9rYx5rLJRODtL+z3lD1 o660VJdMRmtDrIUxmhfAbvh67NXJmixBKx1MfLMpDrDS62jgdL5eamEakAPdg+7D/e Y2D6Y3EUiASguU06msX6SeWNzeDGYQio/nCFoUvZcwEvv/9ORgAsNifnLJ9B05MEBM Fzq1IYiFH7XPg== Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2023 17:27:45 +0200 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi To: Marc Zyngier Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Hanks Chen , Cheng-Yuh.Wu@mediatek.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip/gic-v3: Workaround for GIC-700 erratum 2941627 Message-ID: References: <20230704123436.127449-1-lpieralisi@kernel.org> <86ttujwxb1.wl-maz@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86ttujwxb1.wl-maz@kernel.org> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20230704_082751_138523_A41225FE X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 18.58 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 03:44:50PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: [...] > > + return !((gic_irq_in_rdist(d)) || gic_irq(d) >= 8192 || > > + cpumask_equal(irq_data_get_effective_affinity_mask(d), > > + cpumask_of(smp_processor_id()))); > > I dislike this statement for multiple reasons: > > - it is written as a negation, making it harder than strictly > necessary to parse as it is the opposite of the comment above > > - gic_irq_in_rdist() and gic_irq(d) >= 8192 are two ways of checking > the interrupt range -- maybe we should just do that > > - cpumask_equal() is *slow* if you have more that 64 CPUs, something > that is increasingly common -- a better option would be to check > whether the current CPU is in the mask or not, which would be enough > as we only have a single affinity bit set > > - smp_processor_id() can check for preemption, which is pointless > here, as we're doing things under the irq_desc raw spinlock. > > I would expect something like: > > enum gic_intid_range range = get_intid_range(d); > > return (range == SGI_RANGE || range == ESPI_RANGE) && > !cpumask_test_cpu(raw_smp_processor_id(), > irq_data_get_effective_affinity_mask(d)); > s/SGI/SPI - just noticed, for the records. Thanks, Lorenzo _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel