Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add chip hooks for taking CPUs on/offline.

[David Daney]

On 03/19/2011 01:51 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, David Daney wrote:
> > --- a/include/linux/irqdesc.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/irqdesc.h
> > @@ -178,6 +178,12 @@ static inline int irq_has_action(unsigned int irq)
> >   	return desc->action != NULL;
> >   }
> >
> > +/* Test to see if the irq is currently enabled */
> > +static inline int irq_desc_is_enabled(struct irq_desc *desc)
> > +{
> > +	return desc->depth == 0;
> > +}
>
> That want's to go into kernel/irq/internal.h

I think I need to use this in my irq_chip.irq_unmask method.

Consider this:


CPU0                   CPU1
handle_level_irq
  lock
  mask
  handle_irq_event
    unlock
    .
    .                  disable_irq
    .
    lock
  unmask
  unlock


I need to know in my .unmask method if the interrupt has been disabled. 
 If it has, I will not re-enable (unmask)it.

> >   #ifndef CONFIG_GENERIC_HARDIRQS_NO_COMPAT
> >   static inline int irq_balancing_disabled(unsigned int irq)
> >   {
> > diff --git a/kernel/irq/chip.c b/kernel/irq/chip.c
> > index c9c0601..40736f7 100644
> > --- a/kernel/irq/chip.c
> > +++ b/kernel/irq/chip.c
> > @@ -689,3 +689,38 @@ void irq_modify_status(unsigned int irq, unsigned long clr, unsigned long set)
> >
> >   	irq_put_desc_unlock(desc, flags);
> >   }
> > +
> > +void irq_cpu_online(unsigned int irq)
>
> Odd function name. It does not reflect that this is for per cpu
> interrupts. So something like irq_xxx_per_cpu_irq(irq)
> might be a bit more descriptive.

I am using it for per cpu interrupts, but I didn't want to impose that 
policy on others.



> > +{
>
> So that's called on the cpu which goes online, right?

Yes.

> I wonder whether we can add any sanity check to verify this.
>
> Though I would not worry too much about it. Calling that from a cpu
> which is not going offline should have enough nasty side effects that
> it's noticed during development. :)
>
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +	struct irq_chip *chip;
> > +	struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
>
> Needs to check !desc

OK.

> > +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&desc->lock, flags);
> > +
> > +	chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip(&desc->irq_data);
> > +
> > +	if (chip&&  chip->irq_cpu_online)
> > +		chip->irq_cpu_online(&desc->irq_data,
> > +				     irq_desc_is_enabled(desc));
> > +
> > +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&desc->lock, flags);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void irq_cpu_offline(unsigned int irq)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +	struct irq_chip *chip;
> > +	struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
>
> See above.
>
> Style nit: I prefer ordering:
>
> +	struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
> +	struct irq_chip *chip;
> +	unsigned long flags;
>
> For some reason, probably because I'm used to it, that's easier to
> parse. But don't worry about that, I'll turn it around before sticking
> it into git. :)
>
> Otherwise I'm fine with the approach itself.
>
> Though one question remains: should we just iterate over the irq space
> and call the online/offline callbacks when available instead of having
> the arch code do the iteration.

That would be good I think, especially for sparse irqs.

In the case of the CPU going offline, the .irq_cpu_offline() may need to 
adjust the affinity so that the irq no longer has affinity for the 
off-lined CPU.

This is something needed even for non-per-cpu interrupts.  Also I would 
need a way to call irq_set_affinity() while holding the desc->lock.

David Daney

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/