Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "arm64: use cpu_online_mask when using forced irq_set_affinity"
From: Will Deacon
Date: Thu Aug 28 2014 - 05:50:38 EST
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:49:54AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On 28/08/14 10:38, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:30:06AM +0100, byungchul.park@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >> From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@xxxxxxx>
> >> This reverts commit 601c942176d8ad8334118bddb747e3720bed24f8.
> >> This patch is designed to ensure that the cpu being offlined is not
> >> present in the affinity mask. But it is a bad idea to overwrite the
> >> affinity variable with cpu_online_mask, even in case that the current
> >> affinity already includes onlined cpus.
> >> So revert this patch to replace it with another one doing exactly
> >> what it intends.
> > Sudeep: what's the right way forward for this? There seems to be general
> > agreement that the existing code is broken, but a bunch of different
> > `fixes'. Can we just take a straight port of what tglx proposed for ARM?
> > (changing force to false)
> Yes I agree but for that we need agreement from rmk and hence I asked to
> wait till we hear from rmk. Main issue raised by rmk is if some other
> interrupt controller implementation decide not to migrate away when
> force is false(theoretically possible).
Okey doke. Whatever solution we take should be the same for arm and arm64,
so I'll leave it with you.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/