[PATCH V6 2/2] arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt
Will Deacon
will.deacon at arm.com
Tue Dec 3 08:50:02 EST 2013
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:34:03AM +0000, Vinayak Kale wrote:
> static void
> +armpmu_disable_percpu_irq(void *data)
> +{
> + struct arm_pmu *armpmu = data;
> + struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device;
> + int irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0);
> +
> + cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &armpmu->active_irqs);
Why not just cpumask_clear_cpu?
> + disable_percpu_irq(irq);
> +}
> +
> +static void
> armpmu_release_hardware(struct arm_pmu *armpmu)
> {
> - int i, irq, irqs;
> + int irq;
> + unsigned int i, irqs;
> struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device;
>
> irqs = min(pmu_device->num_resources, num_possible_cpus());
> + if (!irqs)
> + return;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) {
> - if (!cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(i, &armpmu->active_irqs))
> - continue;
> - irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, i);
> - if (irq >= 0)
> - free_irq(irq, armpmu);
> + irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0);
> + if (irq <= 0)
> + return;
> +
> + if (irq_is_percpu(irq)) {
> + on_each_cpu(armpmu_disable_percpu_irq, armpmu, 1);
> + free_percpu_irq(irq, &cpu_hw_events);
> + } else {
> + for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) {
> + if (!cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(i, &armpmu->active_irqs))
> + continue;
> + irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, i);
> + if (irq > 0)
> + free_irq(irq, armpmu);
> + }
> }
> }
>
> +static void
> +armpmu_enable_percpu_irq(void *data)
> +{
> + struct arm_pmu *armpmu = data;
> + struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device;
> + int irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0);
> +
> + enable_percpu_irq(irq, IRQ_TYPE_NONE);
> + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &armpmu->active_irqs);
Hmm, wouldn't it make more sense to pass the irq in data, then deal with the
mask in the caller? (since the mask will *always* be updated by each CPU).
Similarly for the disable path.
Will
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list