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
.
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 Siddha wrote:
On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 21:33 +0530, Srivatsa
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
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
>
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
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 from the
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
code was to
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 that probably the
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
> >>
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
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
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
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_affinity value will be confusing when the
offlining CPU come
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
> 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
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_affinity value will be confusing when the
offlining CPU come
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_affinity value will be confusing when the
offlining CPU come
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_affinity
Please hold on.. I'm not yet done reviewing, I might have more comments :-)
Sure, welcome, thanks again.
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
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
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_affinity value will be confusing when the
offlining CPU come
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_affinity
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_affinity
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 09/26/2012 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 the
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
code? I find
30 matches
Mail list logo
