On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 05:08:19PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 11/05/17 16:54, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > On 11/05/17 16:37, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:15:38PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> >>> On 11/05/17 16:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
> +static inline bool
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 05:08:19PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 11/05/17 16:54, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > On 11/05/17 16:37, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:15:38PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> >>> On 11/05/17 16:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
> +static inline bool
On 11/05/17 16:54, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 11/05/17 16:37, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:15:38PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>> On 11/05/17 16:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
+static inline bool cpus_have_const_cap(int num)
+{
+ if
On 11/05/17 16:54, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 11/05/17 16:37, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:15:38PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>> On 11/05/17 16:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
+static inline bool cpus_have_const_cap(int num)
+{
+ if
On 11/05/17 16:37, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:15:38PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 11/05/17 16:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
+static inline bool cpus_have_const_cap(int num)
+{
+ if (static_branch_likely(_const_caps_ready))
+ return
On 11/05/17 16:37, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:15:38PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 11/05/17 16:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
+static inline bool cpus_have_const_cap(int num)
+{
+ if (static_branch_likely(_const_caps_ready))
+ return
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:37:20PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:15:38PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > On 11/05/17 16:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > >+static inline bool cpus_have_const_cap(int num)
> > >+{
> > >+ if (static_branch_likely(_const_caps_ready))
> > >+
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:37:20PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:15:38PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > On 11/05/17 16:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > >+static inline bool cpus_have_const_cap(int num)
> > >+{
> > >+ if (static_branch_likely(_const_caps_ready))
> > >+
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:15:38PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 11/05/17 16:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >+static inline bool cpus_have_const_cap(int num)
> >+{
> >+if (static_branch_likely(_const_caps_ready))
> >+return __cpus_have_const_cap(num);
> >+else
> >+
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:15:38PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 11/05/17 16:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >+static inline bool cpus_have_const_cap(int num)
> >+{
> >+if (static_branch_likely(_const_caps_ready))
> >+return __cpus_have_const_cap(num);
> >+else
> >+
On 11/05/17 16:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
Currently, cpus_set_cap() calls static_branch_enable_cpuslocked(), which
must take the jump_label mutex.
We call cpus_set_cap() in the secondary bringup path, from the idle
thread where interrupts are disabled. Taking a mutex in this path "is a
NONO"
On 11/05/17 16:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
Currently, cpus_set_cap() calls static_branch_enable_cpuslocked(), which
must take the jump_label mutex.
We call cpus_set_cap() in the secondary bringup path, from the idle
thread where interrupts are disabled. Taking a mutex in this path "is a
NONO"
Currently, cpus_set_cap() calls static_branch_enable_cpuslocked(), which
must take the jump_label mutex.
We call cpus_set_cap() in the secondary bringup path, from the idle
thread where interrupts are disabled. Taking a mutex in this path "is a
NONO" regardless of whether it's contended, and
Currently, cpus_set_cap() calls static_branch_enable_cpuslocked(), which
must take the jump_label mutex.
We call cpus_set_cap() in the secondary bringup path, from the idle
thread where interrupts are disabled. Taking a mutex in this path "is a
NONO" regardless of whether it's contended, and
14 matches
Mail list logo