From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02CBEC433FE for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:33:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1F9A22581 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:33:01 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org F1F9A22581 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CnQvH5RsQzDrbt for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 19:32:59 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d; helo=mail-pg1-x52d.google.com; envelope-from=npiggin@gmail.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20161025 header.b=sKIYa91o; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail-pg1-x52d.google.com (mail-pg1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CnQsZ42kvzDrHb for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 19:31:28 +1100 (AEDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id w16so3074677pga.9 for ; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 00:31:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:subject:to:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:message-id :content-transfer-encoding; bh=mgoPQC9tRjwydiY2nmOPwA0NQaeD1EaGmju9YTJww44=; b=sKIYa91ojaHBS76jxYPaQRrCgdT5aj2S83VVb2udf6VlkD6NmyyDEOMvSzvAJHwDbQ DV08xeH7f/+UF/VzJvHTNKqZPFHAZHwZmklq1bPa0H0nN1qwD/dGBnGIkGt3nKmGjUEu qXCq+pZTOWRUMAnKahD1GAPaA0kwCKMU/BlDwRPbt3TMoLO3We9qQxLdydQZhUVJsptF N3YORd4Vc9FLp8HN/JqDKUsriwoX+UcYr3ZcXKFhNMICRrItggGWUc2wlf4K/3bzObA2 91HT4SSFBFvW+/Ko1KbSWNcuoOynsaj4uBW6ZPMXqRqkvIANO1YNnQS7m7dSnzZ9Em7/ OfYQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:subject:to:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:message-id:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mgoPQC9tRjwydiY2nmOPwA0NQaeD1EaGmju9YTJww44=; b=OrEmbD6LQ14g8EWo/BitBt2BQ2N4kIpH9/krzh39EjTEbd4jFNJb0Pr1xqMh7lDd2M mvkQwzNYpatawLDNRjERDHLaHZlDi2aOPD2Gi5sS8dctC4q/gGEDCyVQkwMAWaxlfRfw F1ag8G2JMf4Nb9VViCfvd5Hi1oKpAkEfeeZ5LnCa0Hd4eF4OID4hyD9aywWSB2Skh8aR ZUKYmQpXuRq5NAcx6xlgZ+Oky/C7nVnYtGi/OevuDQ1yGF8l1D7bYeMQnQhKBFCQ/nS+ jKam32hwVHaC2I5TrV+LzpMSjESXonmEvkkTI9R4g2kdoHfRIbd1cor5DyBJooOTdiEs In0w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Al2RyOoHZWs61ejKRGXpqr6Z6PvJmgONiio7wXi8R8IbYVClr EcyhIw2n3caHjU3zL4UOqYA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzSNNA9/VSbuHp+QCli5omb9tviN0qgr9kmCKlLGCEsb9kOpXGP5yps6SRS8M+vwpHMO4jEqQ== X-Received: by 2002:a62:7550:0:b029:19d:9945:984d with SMTP id q77-20020a6275500000b029019d9945984dmr2801352pfc.81.1607070684920; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 00:31:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([1.129.133.131]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b20sm3688629pfi.218.2020.12.04.00.31.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 04 Dec 2020 00:31:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2020 18:31:16 +1000 From: Nicholas Piggin Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/19] powerpc: interrupt handler wrapper functions To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org References: <20201128144114.944000-1-npiggin@gmail.com> <20201128144114.944000-6-npiggin@gmail.com> <87o8jfpa5k.fsf@linux.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <87o8jfpa5k.fsf@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <1607069681.jta0szxqr9.astroid@bobo.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Excerpts from Aneesh Kumar K.V's message of November 30, 2020 5:37 pm: > Nicholas Piggin writes: >=20 > ..... > +#endif >> +DECLARE_INTERRUPT_HANDLER(emulation_assist_interrupt); >> +DECLARE_INTERRUPT_HANDLER_RAW(do_slb_fault); >=20 > Can we add comments here explaining why some of these handlers need to re= main RAW()? I possibly could. My patch doesn't change the reason, of course, they=20 already have these issues. It wants to avoid reconciling interrupts and probably context tracking=20 because you can take SLB faults within those subsystems, which are not=20 expecting re-entrant calls into them. It's okay to avoid these things=20 because the interrupts don't enable interrupts, go to process context,=20 add any timers, etc. Now that I look at it, possibly the primary do_hash_fault handler needs=20 to be RAW as well for the same reason. =20 >> +DECLARE_INTERRUPT_HANDLER(do_bad_slb_fault); >> +DECLARE_INTERRUPT_HANDLER_RET(do_hash_fault); >> +DECLARE_INTERRUPT_HANDLER_RET(do_page_fault); >> +DECLARE_INTERRUPT_HANDLER(do_bad_page_fault); >> + >> +DECLARE_INTERRUPT_HANDLER_ASYNC(timer_interrupt); >> +DECLARE_INTERRUPT_HANDLER_NMI(performance_monitor_exception_nmi); >> +DECLARE_INTERRUPT_HANDLER_ASYNC(performance_monitor_exception_async); >> +DECLARE_INTERRUPT_HANDLER_RAW(performance_monitor_exception); >=20 > Same for this. That's just because nmi vs async is decided at runtime for PMIs. I can=20 add a comment, although it's more obvious when looking at the body. Thanks, Nick