On Tuesday 26 July 2016 11:20 AM, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 20:22:21 +0530
Madhavan Srinivasan <ma...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
Code to replay the Performance Monitoring Interrupts(PMI).
In the masked_interrupt handler, for PMIs we reset the MSR[EE]
and return. This is due the fact that PMIs are level triggered.
In the __check_irq_replay(), we enabled the MSR[EE] which will
fire the interrupt for us.
Patch also adds a new arch_local_irq_disable_var() variant. New
variant takes an input value to write to the paca->soft_enabled.
This will be used in following patch to implement the tri-state
value for soft-enabled.
Same comment also applies about patches being standalone
transformations that work before and after. Some of these
can be squashed together I think.
Sure.
Signed-off-by: Madhavan Srinivasan <ma...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/hw_irq.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c | 9 ++++++++-
2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/hw_irq.h
b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/hw_irq.h index cc69dde6eb84..863179654452
100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/hw_irq.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/hw_irq.h
@@ -81,6 +81,20 @@ static inline unsigned long
arch_local_irq_disable(void) return flags;
}
+static inline unsigned long arch_local_irq_disable_var(int value)
+{
+ unsigned long flags, zero;
+
+ asm volatile(
+ "li %1,%3; lbz %0,%2(13); stb %1,%2(13)"
+ : "=r" (flags), "=&r" (zero)
+ : "i" (offsetof(struct paca_struct, soft_enabled)),\
+ "i" (value)
+ : "memory");
+
+ return flags;
+}
arch_ function suggests it is arch implementation of a generic
kernel function or something. I think our soft interrupt levels
are just used in powerpc specific code.
The name could also be a little more descriptive.
I would have our internal function be something like
soft_irq_set_level(), and then the arch disable just sets to
the appropriate level as it does today.
The PMU disable level could be implemented in powerpc specific
header with local_irq_and_pmu_disable() or something like that.
Yes. will do.
Thanks,
Nick
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
