Re: [PATCH 4/6] irq: add a new generic IPI handling code to irq core

From: Qais Yousef
Date: Thu Sep 24 2015 - 04:27:08 EST

On 09/23/2015 05:50 PM, Jiang Liu wrote:
On 2015/9/23 22:49, Qais Yousef wrote:
+ * irq_reserve_ipi() - setup an IPI to destination cpumask
+ * @domain: IPI domain
+ * @dest: cpumask of cpus to receive the IPI
+ * @devid: devid that requested the reservation
+ *
+ * Allocate a virq that can be used to send IPI to any CPU in dest mask.
+ *
+ * On success it'll return linux irq number and 0 on failure
+ */
+unsigned int irq_reserve_ipi(struct irq_domain *domain,
+ const struct cpumask *dest, void *devid)
Hi Qais,
I have caught the idea why we need "dest" here. Per my
understanding, IPI could be sent to any active CPUs and the target
CPUs are specified when calling send_ipi(). What's the benefit or
usage to use "dest" to define a possible target scope here? And
how cpu hotplug?

The CPUs we want to send the IPI to are not Linux CPUs only. My use case is about sending IPI to audio coprocessor.
So "dest" doesn't have to be part of Linux online CPUs, hence we need to specify it so that the underlying controller will know how to map to that CPU. I should have put more info in the cover letter, not just the link to the discussion, apologies for that.

I'm not sure about cpu hotplug. We could call irq_destroy_ipi() when a cpu is hot unplugged, but the current behaviour is to statically reserve the IPI and keep them reserved. I think it makes sense to keep it this way for SMP IPIs or things will get complicated.

For a coprocessor, if we the 'module is unloaded', I'd expect the irq_destroy_ipi() to be called returning the reserved IPI to the pool.

Makes sense?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at