From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 18:59:18 -0500 From: Bjorn Helgaas To: Sinan Kaya Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, bhelgaas@google.com, ravikanth.nalla@hpe.com, linux@rainbow-software.org, timur@codeaurora.org, cov@codeaurora.org, jcm@redhat.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, agross@codeaurora.org, Robert Moore , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Lv Zheng , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, wim@djo.tudelft.nl, devel@acpica.org, Thomas Gleixner , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Len Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/3] Revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: separate ISA penalty calculation" Message-ID: <20161022235918.GJ9007@localhost> References: <1476915664-27231-1-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <1476915664-27231-4-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <20161021023109.GD31044@localhost> <8dcd59ac-815b-da71-a3f2-ba533c4182c9@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <8dcd59ac-815b-da71-a3f2-ba533c4182c9@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 07:58:57PM -0700, Sinan Kaya wrote: > On 10/20/2016 7:31 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > ... > > And I don't think it fixes a user-visible problem, so it doesn't need > > to be applied immediately. I'm not sure this is worth doing by > > itself; maybe it should wait until we can do more cleanup and think > > about all these issues together? > > It does fix the PCI_USING penalty assignment. > > if (link->irq.active && link->irq.active == irq) > penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING; > > > If we drop this patch, then we need > [PATCH V3 1/3] ACPI, PCI IRQ: add PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts > > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2547605 > > as somebody needs to increment the penalty with PCI_USING when IRQ is assigned > for a given ISA IRQ. > > We might as well take [PATCH V4 1/3], [PATCH V4 2/3] and [PATCH V3 1/3] > for this regression. It sounds like either V3 1/3 or V4 3/3 will fix the regression. The V3 1/3 patch is much smaller and essentially makes this piece look like it did in v4.6. The V4 3/3 patch removes acpi_irq_penalty_init() and compensates by using acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty() for ISA IRQs again. But acpi_irq_penalty_init() added PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE for _CRS, and only if there was no _PRS, while acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty() always adds PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING for _CRS, regardless of whether _PRS exists. Since V4 3/3 is so much bigger and makes this quite subtle change in how _CRS is handled, I like V3 1/3 better. Are we all set to go now? I think I've acked the patches you mentioned. Bjorn