[PATCH V3 2/2] arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt

[Vinayak Kale]

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com> wrote:
> On 2013-11-18 14:18, Vinayak Kale wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Vinayak,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2013-11-18 13:22, Vinayak Kale wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Add support for irq registration when pmu interrupt is percpu.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vinayak Kale <vkale at apm.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tuan Phan <tphan at apm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c |  102
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>>>  1 file changed, 74 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
>>>> b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
>>>> index cea1594..23475f6 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
>>>> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
>>>>
>>>>  #include <linux/bitmap.h>
>>>>  #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/irq.h>
>>>>  #include <linux/kernel.h>
>>>>  #include <linux/export.h>
>>>>  #include <linux/perf_event.h>
>>>> @@ -363,22 +364,51 @@ validate_group(struct perf_event *event)
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>>  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);
>>>> +       disable_percpu_irq(irq);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static void
>>>>  armpmu_release_hardware(struct arm_pmu *armpmu)
>>>>  {
>>>>         int i, irq, irqs;
>>>>         struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device;
>>>>
>>>> -       irqs = min(pmu_device->num_resources, num_possible_cpus());
>>>> +       irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0);
>>>>
>>>> -       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);
>>>> +       if (irq_to_desc(irq) && irq_is_percpu(irq)) {
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you need to check the irq_desc here? It really looks like a misuse
>>> of
>>> the API.
>>
>> I don't think it's being misused. In case of invalid irq number, the
>> API would return null.
>
>
> And feeding an error code to irq_to_desc() doesn't disturb you?
Since the API handles the error condition and returns null, so it
won't break stuff.
But I think your earlier suggestion of checking invalid irq number
beforehand is better, since it would help to avoid wasting time in
searching the irq desc.
> Do you call that a normal use of the API? Humfff....
>
>         M.
>
> --
> Fast, cheap, reliable. Pick two.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/