On Wednesday 04 January 2017 06:08 PM, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 17:19:46 +0530
Madhavan Srinivasan <ma...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
@@ -134,7 +137,7 @@ static inline bool arch_irqs_disabled(void)
_was_enabled = local_paca->soft_enabled; \
local_paca->soft_enabled = IRQ_DISABLE_MASK_LINUX;\
local_paca->irq_happened |= PACA_IRQ_HARD_DIS; \
- if (!(_was_enabled & IRQ_DISABLE_MASK_LINUX)) \
+ if (!(_was_enabled & IRQ_DISABLE_MASK_ALL)) \
trace_hardirqs_off(); \
} while(0)
Hang on, maybe there's some confusion about this. trace_hardirqs_off() is
for Linux irqs (i.e., local_irq_disable()), so that should continue to
test just the LINUX mask I think. Otherwise this
powerpc_local_pmu_disable();
hard_irq_disable();
Currently we set both bits for pmu soft disable
flags =
soft_disabled_mask_or_return(IRQ_DISABLE_MASK_LINUX | \
IRQ_DISABLE_MASK_PMU); \
So yes in the above seq, we will miss the pmu bit. But since
trace_hardirqs_off()
is for _LINUX, instead will it not be safer to OR it?
local_paca->soft_disabled_mask |= IRQ_DISABLE_MASK_LINUX;\
Maddy
Will miss calling trace_hardirqs_off(). You don't have a function that
disables PMU irqs without Linux irqs, but one might exist.
What I was concerned about is actually setting the disable mask to ALL
local_paca->soft_enabled = IRQ_DISABLE_MASK_ALL;
No? Otherwise if you did
powerpc_local_irq_pmu_disable();
hard_irq_disable();
Then you would lose the PMU bit out of the mask.
Thanks,
Nick
