Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "arm64: use cpu_online_mask when using forced irq_set_affinity"

[Sudeep Holla]

On 28/08/14 10:50, Will Deacon wrote:
> 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.

tglx just confirmed that interrupt controller implementation using force
flag must use online_cpumask. So converting to false should be fine.
So once rmk agrees for ARM, we can apply this revert and change to false
for ARM64 also.

Regards,
Sudeep

--
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/