Re: [PATCH] Fix interrupt distribution in ppc970
From: Milton Miller <hidden>
Date: 2007-04-26 14:43:19
On Apr 26, 2007, at 4:24 AM, Mohan Kumar M wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 12:45:15AM -0500, Milton Miller wrote:
[snip]
Milton, I hope this patch meets all your requirements.
Closer, much better.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Cc: Milton Miller <redacted>, Michael Ellerman [off-list ref] Signed-off-by: Mohan Kumar M <redacted> --- arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) Index: linux-2.6.21-rc4/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c ===================================================================--- linux-2.6.21-rc4.orig/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c +++ linux-2.6.21-rc4/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c@@ -156,9 +156,9 @@ static inline void lpar_qirr_info(int n_
[snipping]
+ if (!cpus_equal(cpumask, CPU_MASK_ALL)) {
cpus_and(tmp, cpu_online_map, cpumask);
+ server = first_cpu(tmp);
+
+ if (server < NR_CPUS)
+ return get_hard_smp_processor_id(server);
+ else {
+ if(strict_check)
+ return (-1);No parens around the return value. That is, use return -1;
+ else + return default_distrib_server; + }
...
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -415,7 +421,10 @@ static void xics_set_affinity(unsigned i /* For the moment only implement delivery to all cpus or one cpu */ if (cpus_equal(cpumask, CPU_MASK_ALL)) { - newmask = default_distrib_server; + if (cpus_equal(cpu_online_map, cpu_present_map)) + newmask = default_distrib_server; + else + newmask = default_server; } else { cpus_and(tmp, cpu_online_map, cpumask); if (cpus_empty(tmp))===================quoted
...quoted
@@ -415,7 +419,10 @@ static void xics_set_affinity(unsigned i...quoted
/* For the moment only implement delivery to all cpus or one cpu */ if (cpus_equal(cpumask, CPU_MASK_ALL)) { - newmask = default_distrib_server; + if (cpus_equal(cpu_online_map, cpu_present_map))this was supposed to be the call with strict = 1Do you mean to use 'strict_check' argument in xics_set_affinity? set_affinity call is declared in linux/irq.h, so if modifying xics_set_affinity will affect other arch's set_affinity also.
Yes. The whole point of
-static int get_irq_server(unsigned int virq) +static int get_irq_server(unsigned int virq, unsigned int strict_check)
was to factor out the common code in this function. I wasn't trying to change the prototype of xics_set_affinity. Looking at the code a bit, I think part of the confusion is that newmask is horribly misnamed. Please rename it to server or irqserver. Obtain its value by calling get_irq_server. If the server returned is -1 (in strict mode), don't call rtas (just return like today). I guess a printk could be in order since the function is void, and only root can request the change. milton