On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:34:03AM +0000, Vinayak Kale wrote:
> Add support for irq registration when pmu interrupt is percpu.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vinayak Kale <vk...@apm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tuan Phan <tp...@apm.com>
> ---
> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
