ux.intel.com; Paul E.
> McKenney; Peter Zijlstra; ru...@rustcorp.com.au
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86/fixup_irq: Clean the offlining CPU from the
> irq
> affinity mask
>
> On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 23:00 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > On 09/26/2012 10:36 PM, Suresh Siddh
On 09/28/2012 12:50 AM, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 00:12 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 09/27/2012 04:16 AM, Suresh Siddha wrote:
>>>
>>> No. irq_set_affinity()
>>>
>>
>> Um? That takes the updated/changed affinity and sets data->affinity to
>> that value no? You mentioned t
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 00:12 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 09/27/2012 04:16 AM, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> >
> > No. irq_set_affinity()
> >
>
> Um? That takes the updated/changed affinity and sets data->affinity to
> that value no? You mentioned that probably the intention of the original
> cod
On 09/27/2012 04:16 AM, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 23:00 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 09/26/2012 10:36 PM, Suresh Siddha wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 21:33 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
I have some fundamental questions here:
1. Why was the CPU never removed
On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 23:00 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 09/26/2012 10:36 PM, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 21:33 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >> I have some fundamental questions here:
> >> 1. Why was the CPU never removed from the affinity masks in the original
> >> co
On 09/26/2012 10:36 PM, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 21:33 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> I have some fundamental questions here:
>> 1. Why was the CPU never removed from the affinity masks in the original
>> code? I find it hard to believe that it was just an oversight, because
On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 21:33 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> I have some fundamental questions here:
> 1. Why was the CPU never removed from the affinity masks in the original
> code? I find it hard to believe that it was just an oversight, because the
> whole point of fixup_irqs() is to affine the
On 09/27/2012 05:15 AM, Chuansheng Liu wrote:
>
> When one CPU is going offline, and fixup_irqs() will re-set the
> irq affinity in some cases, we should clean the offlining CPU from
> the irq affinity.
>
> The reason is setting offlining CPU as of the affinity is useless.
> Moreover, the smp_aff
On 09/27/2012 05:15 AM, Chuansheng Liu wrote:
>
> When one CPU is going offline, and fixup_irqs() will re-set the
> irq affinity in some cases, we should clean the offlining CPU from
> the irq affinity.
>
> The reason is setting offlining CPU as of the affinity is useless.
> Moreover, the smp_aff
On 09/26/2012 02:26 PM, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
>> A return value of 0 and 1 are acceptable. So this check isn't correct.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Srivatsa S. Bhat
>>
> Which case value 1 is acceptable, could you share? Thanks.
I can see the following in include/linux/irq.h:
/*
* Return value for chip->
> A return value of 0 and 1 are acceptable. So this check isn't correct.
>
> Regards,
> Srivatsa S. Bhat
>
Which case value 1 is acceptable, could you share? Thanks.
> OMG, why did you drop the other hunk which cleared the cpu *before*
> invoking ->irq_set_affinity()? IMO, altering irq affinity
> Please hold on.. I'm not yet done reviewing, I might have more comments :-)
Sure, welcome, thanks again.
On 09/26/2012 11:08 PM, Chuansheng Liu wrote:
>
> When one CPU is going offline, and fixup_irqs() will re-set the
> irq affinity in some cases, we should clean the offlining CPU from
> the irq affinity.
>
> The reason is setting offlining CPU as of the affinity is useless.
> Moreover, the smp_aff
13 matches
Mail list logo
