From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip: gic: Allow gic_arch_extn hooks to call into scheduler Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 15:37:00 -0700 Message-ID: <53EA970C.9070003@codeaurora.org> References: <1407194837-27190-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <53E118EE.5040205@codeaurora.org> <53E14B33.9080701@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Nicolas Pitre Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Jason Cooper , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On 08/05/14 19:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > >> It allows us to synchronize with another CPU that may be inside >> gic_raise_softirq(). If the other CPU was in that function then this CPU >> would wait until it was done sending the IPI to continue along and >> reroute them. If the other CPU was just about to grab the sgi lock then >> we would guarantee that the CPU would see the new gic_cpu_map value and >> thus any redirection is not necessary. > OK I get it now. > >> I hoped that the commit text explained this. > I'm possibly not bright enough to get it the first time. > >> Honestly it probably isn't a noticeable performance boost either way >> but I think this is the best we can do. > Sure, agreed. > > > Ok, so which patch is preferred? -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation