From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com (e6.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.146]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e6.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9CE2DDF10 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:25:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e6.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l3Q9PpNp007102 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 05:25:51 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.3) with ESMTP id l3Q9Ov6w530504 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 05:24:57 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l3Q9OugS005346 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 05:24:57 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:54:55 +0530 From: Mohan Kumar M To: Milton Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix interrupt distribution in ppc970 Message-ID: <20070426092455.GA4144@in.ibm.com> References: <20070306165529.GD7476@in.ibm.com> <1173202634.4675.37.camel@concordia.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20070307045341.GG7476@in.ibm.com> <1173264752.5101.49.camel@concordia.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20070409085732.GC4281@in.ibm.com> <1176188763.9836.16.camel@concordia.ozlabs.ibm.com> <1176254201.4815.14.camel@concordia.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20070419115233.GA4172@in.ibm.com> <080126626f9bea228426c0c3d7bf1730@bga.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <080126626f9bea228426c0c3d7bf1730@bga.com> Cc: ppcdev , Paul Mackerras , Anton Blanchard , fastboot@lists.osdl.org Reply-To: mohan@in.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 12:45:15AM -0500, Milton Miller wrote: [snip] > > Don't test cpus_empty twice, instead do a nested if. > > Actually, looking at this a bit, you need your default_distrib or > default_server check again. > > How about reorder to be if (!cpus_equal(...ALL)) { > cpus_and > if !cpus_empty(tmp > return get_hard(first); > if (strict) > return -1; > } > > if (cpus_equal(online, preseent) > return distrib > return default_server > > For that matter, can we just call first_cpu, and check its <= NUM_CPUS > elminating the call to cpus_empty ? Only call get_hard_cpu if its > valid. > Milton, I hope this patch meets all your requirements. Cc: Milton Miller , Michael Ellerman Signed-off-by: Mohan Kumar M --- arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) Index: linux-2.6.21-rc4/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.21-rc4.orig/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c +++ linux-2.6.21-rc4/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c @@ -156,9 +156,9 @@ static inline void lpar_qirr_info(int n_ #ifdef CONFIG_SMP -static int get_irq_server(unsigned int virq) +static int get_irq_server(unsigned int virq, unsigned int strict_check) { - unsigned int server; + int server; /* For the moment only implement delivery to all cpus or one cpu */ cpumask_t cpumask = irq_desc[virq].affinity; cpumask_t tmp = CPU_MASK_NONE; @@ -166,22 +166,28 @@ static int get_irq_server(unsigned int v if (!distribute_irqs) return default_server; - if (cpus_equal(cpumask, CPU_MASK_ALL)) { - server = default_distrib_server; - } else { + if (!cpus_equal(cpumask, CPU_MASK_ALL)) { cpus_and(tmp, cpu_online_map, cpumask); - if (cpus_empty(tmp)) - server = default_distrib_server; + server = first_cpu(tmp); + + if (server < NR_CPUS) + return get_hard_smp_processor_id(server); + else { + if(strict_check) + return (-1); + else + return default_distrib_server; + } + } else { + if (cpus_equal(cpu_online_map, cpu_present_map)) + return default_distrib_server; else - server = get_hard_smp_processor_id(first_cpu(tmp)); + return default_server; } - - return server; - } #else -static int get_irq_server(unsigned int virq) +static int get_irq_server(unsigned int virq, unsigned int strict_check) { return default_server; } @@ -192,7 +198,7 @@ static void xics_unmask_irq(unsigned int { unsigned int irq; int call_status; - unsigned int server; + int server; pr_debug("xics: unmask virq %d\n", virq); @@ -201,7 +207,7 @@ static void xics_unmask_irq(unsigned int if (irq == XICS_IPI || irq == XICS_IRQ_SPURIOUS) return; - server = get_irq_server(virq); + server = get_irq_server(virq, 0); call_status = rtas_call(ibm_set_xive, 3, 1, NULL, irq, server, DEFAULT_PRIORITY); @@ -415,7 +421,10 @@ static void xics_set_affinity(unsigned i /* For the moment only implement delivery to all cpus or one cpu */ if (cpus_equal(cpumask, CPU_MASK_ALL)) { - newmask = default_distrib_server; + if (cpus_equal(cpu_online_map, cpu_present_map)) + newmask = default_distrib_server; + else + newmask = default_server; } else { cpus_and(tmp, cpu_online_map, cpumask); if (cpus_empty(tmp)) =================== > ... > >@@ -415,7 +419,10 @@ static void xics_set_affinity(unsigned i > ... > > /* For the moment only implement delivery to all cpus or one cpu */ > > if (cpus_equal(cpumask, CPU_MASK_ALL)) { > >- newmask = default_distrib_server; > >+ if (cpus_equal(cpu_online_map, cpu_present_map)) > > > > this was supposed to be the call with strict = 1 Do you mean to use 'strict_check' argument in xics_set_affinity? set_affinity call is declared in linux/irq.h, so if modifying xics_set_affinity will affect other arch's set_affinity also. Regards, Mohan