[PATCH 00/08] ARM: Dynamic IRQ demux support
grant.likely at secretlab.ca
Fri Oct 15 23:53:35 EDT 2010
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 07:50:28PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Eric Miao <eric.y.miao at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Magnus Damm <magnus.damm at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Eric Miao <eric.y.miao at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Magnus Damm <magnus.damm at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> ARM: Dynamic IRQ demux support
> >>> Just FYI, I had a patch months ago for this:
> >>> http://www.spinics.net/linux/lists/arm-kernel/msg92836.html
> >>> Do you think that's a simpler way to go?
> >> Thanks for the pointer. I wasn't aware of your patch, but the fact
> >> that both of us came up with similar solutions to the same problem
> >> clearly shows that there is a need for this feature.
> >> Your patch is much less intrusive compared to what i came up with. I
> >> like the simplicity. I guess it is natural that the simplicity comes
> >> with a bit of overhead. I'm thinking of the extra branches and
> >> whatever potential cache misses coming from the code and callback
> >> being located in different cache lines compared to the rest of the
> >> code in __irq_svc and __irq_usr.
> >> My patches keeps the handlers in the same cache lines as before, but
> >> this comes with the cost of more serious rearrangement of the code.
> >> Also, my alignment_trap patch may decrease performance, not sure how
> >> to deal with that in a good way.
> > Yeah, I was thinking of the performance degradation at that time as well.
> > What worried me most is actually the long jump. However, we do have
> > a long jump to asm_do_IRQ anyway.
> > And the optimizations like get_irqnr_preamble and get_irqnr_and_base
> > can be carried out in C code as well, or if that's tricky enough, inline
> > assembly code can also help.
> Sure, I agree.
> >> I don't mind so much which patch that gets merged, but I'm a little
> >> bit concerned about code duplication. My patch moves macros into a
> >> header file that each demux instance can make use of to minimize the
> >> amount of duplicated code. I'm not sure how you are planning on
> >> implementing each demux instance. If possible I'd like to see the
> >> irq_handler macro in a header file somewhere so we don't have to
> >> duplicate that code.
> > Machines will have to specify their IRQ demux handler, which could be
> > same among a group of machines which share common demux code, and
> > thus duplication can be avoided.
> Right, I agree. I'm thinking of SMP-specific interrupts for IPIs and
> local timers that most likely want to be shared across multiple
> machines. I can for instance imagine a wide range of Cortex-A9 based
> SoCs that all need to deal with SMP interrupts.
> >> On top of that I'd also like to break out the GIC demux code and put
> >> it in a central location, but that's a separate issue.
> > I think we can make a common function call for all the IRQ demux handler
> > for GIC then.
> Sure, as long as we can point out the SoC-specific base address then
> we should be ok.
> >> Any thoughts? Shall I try to move the irq_handler macro to some header file?
> > Your patch is excellent, I don't mind either which gets in. What I'm a
> > bit concerned is the effort to keep up with the mostly optimized code.
> > I was thinking of a bit (not that much significant I guess) performance loss
> > when multiple IRQ demux handler is required for the sake of simplicity
> > and less intrusiveness, while still able to use the original optimized path
> > when that's not required (i.e. turning CONFIG_.... off).
> > Thoughts?
> I feel that the current abstraction with the macros in entry-macros.S
> is pretty nice and familiar. I think your solution with abstracting at
> the irq_handler level is simple from the mach-programmers point of
> view, but it does come with some performance penalty. I'm also not so
> sure how to deal with the code duplication. Like you say, the code
> could be shared between machines, but exactly how I don't know.
> Did you hear anything back from Russell? If he's ok with your patch
> then problem solved. Perhaps it's already in the tracker? =)
> If not, how about picking out the best part of our patches? I think my
> main benefit is the performance - hooking in the per-mach handlers
> below the vector_stub comes with little or no additional cost. Your
> strength is the simplicity and the nice use of the machine_desc.
> Perhaps we can put the __irq_usr and __irq_svc callbacks in struct
> Does anyone else care? =)
I care, but I haven't been able to dig into the details. The way
things are going, I probably won't be able to either until after Linux
Plumbers is over.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel