From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Mon, 09 Nov 2015 11:07:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from mailapp01.imgtec.com ([195.59.15.196]:15594 "EHLO mailapp01.imgtec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S27013038AbbKIKHXn-5zP (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:07:23 +0100 Received: from hhmail02.hh.imgtec.org (unknown [10.100.10.20]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 8A97A43DD2E21; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 10:07:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LEMAIL01.le.imgtec.org (192.168.152.62) by hhmail02.hh.imgtec.org (10.100.10.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 10:07:17 +0000 Received: from [192.168.154.94] (192.168.154.94) by LEMAIL01.le.imgtec.org (192.168.152.62) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.210.2; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 10:07:17 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/14] genirq: Add a new generic IPI reservation code to irq core To: Thomas Gleixner References: <1446549181-31788-1-git-send-email-qais.yousef@imgtec.com> <1446549181-31788-8-git-send-email-qais.yousef@imgtec.com> CC: , , , , , From: Qais Yousef Message-ID: <56407055.6080602@imgtec.com> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 10:07:17 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [192.168.154.94] Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 49872 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: qais.yousef@imgtec.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On 11/07/2015 01:31 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2015, Qais Yousef wrote: >> + >> + /* always allocate a virq per cpu */ >> + nr_irqs = ipi_mask_weight(dest); > That's not really a good assumption. Not all architectures need > seperate interrupt numbers / descriptors because they can allocate > from a per cpu interrupt space. We really want to handle that here as > well. So we need a flag in the IPI domain which tells us whether that > allocation needs to be weight(desc) or 1. OK. But is it bad to always allocate the weight? I thought allocating virqs is cheap, or maybe not? Thanks, Qais From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailapp01.imgtec.com ([195.59.15.196]:15594 "EHLO mailapp01.imgtec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S27013038AbbKIKHXn-5zP (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:07:23 +0100 Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/14] genirq: Add a new generic IPI reservation code to irq core References: <1446549181-31788-1-git-send-email-qais.yousef@imgtec.com> <1446549181-31788-8-git-send-email-qais.yousef@imgtec.com> From: Qais Yousef Message-ID: <56407055.6080602@imgtec.com> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 10:07:17 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jason@lakedaemon.net, marc.zyngier@arm.com, jiang.liu@linux.intel.com, ralf@linux-mips.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org Message-ID: <20151109100717.kPS6TLOv49GEXwUjz_2wDUcTQ8PAjVAQdyrMn3HVxGg@z> On 11/07/2015 01:31 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2015, Qais Yousef wrote: >> + >> + /* always allocate a virq per cpu */ >> + nr_irqs = ipi_mask_weight(dest); > That's not really a good assumption. Not all architectures need > seperate interrupt numbers / descriptors because they can allocate > from a per cpu interrupt space. We really want to handle that here as > well. So we need a flag in the IPI domain which tells us whether that > allocation needs to be weight(desc) or 1. OK. But is it bad to always allocate the weight? I thought allocating virqs is cheap, or maybe not? Thanks, Qais