Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] irq: Allow multiple clients to register for irq affinity notification

[Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org>]

On Wed, Oct 08 2014 at 09:03 -0600, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, Lina Iyer wrote:
>> > How would a general "keep track of the targets of all interrupts in
>> > the system" mechanism make use of this?
>> Sorry, I do not understand your question.
>> PM QoS is only interested in the IRQs specified in the QoS request. If
>> there are no requests that need to be associated with an IRQ, then PM
>> QoS will not register for an affinity change notification.
>
>Right, and I really hate the whole per irq notifier. It's a rats nest
>of life time issues and other problems.
>
>It also does not tell you whether an irq is disabled, reenabled or
>removed, which will change the qos constraints as well unless you
>plaster all drivers with updates to qos for those cases.
>
>So what about adding a qos field to irq_data itself, have a function
>to update it and let the irq core keep track of the per cpu irq
>relevant qos constraints and provide an evaluation function or a
>notifier for the PM/idle code?
If that isnt intrusive in the IRQ core, then we can make it work for PM
QoS. The issue that I am concerned is that, it might result in back and
forth between IRQ and PM QoS frameworks. If that doesnt happen, then we
are good with this approach.
>
>That's going to need some serious thought as well, but it should avoid
>most of the nasty notifier and lifetime issue which the per irq
>notifiers provide.
Sure. I will look into this.
>
>Thoughts?

Thank you.

Lina
>
>
>
>