[PATCH V6 2/2] arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt
From: Will Deacon <hidden>
Date: 2013-12-03 11:31:40
Also in:
lkml
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:34:03AM +0000, Vinayak Kale wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Add support for irq registration when pmu interrupt is percpu. Signed-off-by: Vinayak Kale <redacted> Signed-off-by: Tuan Phan <redacted> --- arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 116 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 86 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c index cea1594..d2d562f 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>@@ -363,26 +364,61 @@ 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; + int irq;
Why did you not make this unsigned, like I suggested?
+ 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;Then this is just an if (!irq), as I mentioned last time. Will