From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10 v2] iommu/amd: lock splitting & GFP_KERNEL allocation Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 14:49:54 -0500 Message-ID: <1521316194.3722.74.camel@redhat.com> References: <20180316201836.7864-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180316201836.7864-1-bigeasy-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Joerg Roedel Cc: iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org On Fri, 2018-03-16 at 21:18 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > The goal here is to make the memory allocation in get_irq_table() not > with disabled interrupts and having as little raw_spin_lock as > possible > while having them if the caller is also holding one (like desc->lock > during IRQ-affinity changes). > I reverted one patch one patch in the iommu while rebasing since it > make job easier. If the goal is to have "as little raw_spin_lock as possible" -- and presumably also to avoid unnecessary complexity -- wouldn't it be better to leave my patch in, and drop patches 4 and 9? -Scott