From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753735AbcJUC7D (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Oct 2016 22:59:03 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:60536 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752647AbcJUC7B (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Oct 2016 22:59:01 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 smtp.codeaurora.org 1A32361B28 Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=okaya@codeaurora.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/3] Revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: separate ISA penalty calculation" To: Bjorn Helgaas References: <1476915664-27231-1-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <1476915664-27231-4-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <20161021023109.GD31044@localhost> 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 From: Sinan Kaya Message-ID: <8dcd59ac-815b-da71-a3f2-ba533c4182c9@codeaurora.org> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:58:57 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161021023109.GD31044@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/20/2016 7:31 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> Let's try to simplify the code one more time to share code. > I'm sort of OK with this, but it's not exactly a revert of the above > (the commits you mention don't check "link->irq.initialized == 1". I can split the initialized bit. If I remove it from this commit, it can break the git bisect. That's why, I folded it into this review. I briefly mentioned about it in the cover letter. It might not be quiet clear. > > Previously acpi_irq_penalty_init() looked at _PRS info ("possible" > IRQs), but now we won't. Maybe that's good; I dunno. But it should > be mentioned. I'm directing all IRQs to acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty function. acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty checks for the possible values here from _PRS. /* * penalize the IRQs PCI might use, but not as severely. */ for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) if (link->irq.possible[i] == irq) penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE / link->irq.possible_count; > > 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. -- Sinan Kaya Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.