Re: percpu irq APIs and perf

From: Marc Zyngier
Date: Fri Dec 11 2015 - 12:58:36 EST


On 11/12/15 12:20, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> Hi Marc,
> On Friday 11 December 2015 04:53 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 05:26:02 +0000
>>> I think we can make percpu irq API a bit easier to use.
>>> (1) First thing which request_percpu_irq() does is check for
>>> irq_settings_is_per_cpu_devid(). Thus irq_set_percpu_devid() can be built into the
>>> API itself eliding the need to set it apriori.
>> I don't think we can. At least in the case I'm concerned about (GIC's
>> PPIs), this is a hardware requirement. You cannot turn a global
>> interrupt into a per-CPU one, nor the other way around.
> Understood.
>> We also have
>> drivers (at least our PMUs) that do test the state of that interrupt
>> (per-CPU or not) to find out how they should be requested.
> But they call request_percpu_irq() only after determining that irq is percpu.
> Otherwise they will call vanilla request_irq()
> e.g. drivers/perf/arm/arc_pmu.c
> Which means that request_percpu_irq() can safely assume that caller absolutely
> wants percpu semantics and hence do equivalent of irq_set_percpu_devid()
> internally - NO. I'm sure I'm missing something.

It actually works the other way around. The caller cannot find out about
the per-cpu property of the interrupt just by looking at the virtual IRQ
number. It needs to ask the core code about it, and that's why the GIC
tags these interrupts as per-cpu.

>> I agree that the API is probably not the ideal one, but there is HW
>> constraints that we cannot just ignore.
> The API is pretty nice :-) there are these quirks which I want to avoid.
> My naive'ity in this area of code fails me to see how the hardware constraint is
> coming into play.
>>> (2) It seems that disabling autoen by default for percpu irq makes sense as
>>> evident from drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c where users want to control
>>> this. However the comment there is misleading
>>> /* Even though the documentation says that request_percpu_irq
>>> * doesn't enable the interrupts automatically, it actually
>>> * does so on the local CPU.
>>> *
>>> * Make sure it's disabled.
>>> */
>>> Either sme core code is clearing NOAUTOEN or calling enable_precpu_irq() making
>>> request_percpu_irq() enable it.
>> If that's the case, this is a bug. Nobody should enable that interrupt
>> until the driver has chosen to do so.
> Perhaps Maxim can shed more light as this seems to be his comment.
>>> IMHO it makes more sense to make autoen explicit in the API.
>>> Perhaps introduce a API flavour, which takes the autoen as arg.
>>> It could take flags to make it more extensible / future safe but that will be an
>>> overkill I think.
>> But auto-enabling cannot be done from a single CPU. It can only be done
>> from the core that is going to be delivered that interrupt. This
>> requires access to registers that are simply not available to other CPUs.
> I'm not talking about eliminating enable_percpu_irq() call from all cores and
> still getting the auto-enable semantics. What I mean is doing the equivalent of
> irq_set_status_flags(irq, IRQ_NOAUTOEN);
> from within request_percpu_irq_xxx() based on an additional arg (vs. doing it
> aprioiri outside).
> OTOH, thinking a bit more abt this, I think the current semantics of auto-disable
> w/o any arg is just fine. Most percpu irqs in general purpose drivers would want
> the auto-disable anyways. Only for core irws such as timer / IPI etc do we want
> auto-enable.

So assuming we can do this (forgetting about any form of HW limitation):
CPU0 request the per-CPU IRQ with an AUTOEN flag. What happens on CPU1?
Are you expecting it to immediately be able to take interrupts? What
handler data gets passed to it?


Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
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