arndb.de>, ulli.kr...@googlemail.com, vgu...@kernel.org,
linux-...@vger.kernel.org, j...@joshtriplett.org, rost...@goodmis.org,
r...@vger.kernel.org, b...@alien8.de, bc...@quicinc.com,
tsbog...@alpha.franken.de, linux-par...@vger.kernel.org, sudeep.ho...@arm.com,
shawn...@kernel.org, da...@davemloft.net, dal...@libc.org, t...@atomide.com,
amakha...@vmware.com, bjorn.anders...@linaro.org, h...@zytor.com,
sparcli...@vger.kernel.org, linux-hexa...@vger.kernel.org,
linux-ri...@lists.infradead.org, anton.iva...@cambridgegreys.com,
jo...@southpole.se, yury.no...@gmail.com, rich...@nod.at, x...@kernel.org,
li...@armlinux.org.uk, mi...@redhat.com, a...@eecs.berkeley.edu,
paul...@kernel.org, h...@linux.ibm.com, stefan.kristians...@saunalahti.fi,
openr...@lists.librecores.org, paul.walms...@sifive.com,
linux-te...@vger.kernel.org, namhy...@kernel.org,
andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com, jpoim...@kernel.org, jgr...@suse.com,
mon...@monstr.eu, linux-m...@vger.kernel.org, pal...@dabbelt.com, anup@brainfa
ult.org, i...@jurassic.park.msu.ru, johan...@sipsolutions.net,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+archive=mail-archive....@lists.ozlabs.org
Sender: "Linuxppc-dev"
<linuxppc-dev-bounces+archive=mail-archive....@lists.ozlabs.org>
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 01:41:13PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 04:27:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > --- a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> > +++ b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> > @@ -622,9 +622,13 @@ struct cpumask *tick_get_broadcast_onesh
> > * to avoid a deep idle transition as we are about to get the
> > * broadcast IPI right away.
> > */
> > -int tick_check_broadcast_expired(void)
> > +noinstr int tick_check_broadcast_expired(void)
> > {
> > +#ifdef _ASM_GENERIC_BITOPS_INSTRUMENTED_NON_ATOMIC_H
> > + return arch_test_bit(smp_processor_id(),
> > cpumask_bits(tick_broadcast_force_mask));
> > +#else
> > return cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), tick_broadcast_force_mask);
> > +#endif
> > }
>
> This is somewhat not-ideal. :/
I'll say.
> Could we unconditionally do the arch_test_bit() variant, with a comment, or
> does that not exist in some cases?
Loads of build errors ensued, which is how I ended up with this mess ...
