[PATCH 0/2] genirq: arm64: perf: support for percpu pmu interrupt

[Vinayak Kale]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 01:04:23AM +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 11/06/13 04:07, Vinayak Kale wrote:
>> > This patch series adds support to handle interrupt registration/deregistration
>> > in arm64 pmu driver when pmu interrupt type is percpu.
>> >
>> > Patches in this patch series were previously sent out as separate patches [1].
>> > This patch series incorporates comments/fixes suggested for original patches.
>> >
>> > [1]
>> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-October/205888.html
>> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-October/204414.html
>> >
>> > Vinayak Kale (2):
>> >   genirq: error reporting in request_percpu_irq() and
>> >     request_threaded_irq()
>> >   arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt
>> >
>> >  arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c |  109 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>> >  kernel/irq/manage.c            |   12 +++--
>> >  2 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>> >
>>
>> What ever happened to the approach here[1]? It doesn't look very nice to
>> have to request the irq first as a per-cpu interrupt and then try as a
>> non-percpu interrupt when genirq already knows if its per-cpu or not.
>>
>> [1] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1207.3/02955.html
>
> Hmm, I'd completely forgotten about that approach. Whilst it certainly looks
> cleaner from a user perspective, I always get scared when I see
> 'desc->status_use_accessors' since it tends to incur the wrath of tglx :)
>
> That said, I guess that should be fine in irqdesc.h (basically adding a new
> accessor). Chris went missing after sending those initial patches, so
> perhaps Vinayak could look at resurrecting those?
>
Okay, in next patch revision I will use that approach.