Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] irqchip: dw-apb-ictl: add irq_set_affinity support

[Jisheng Zhang]

Dear Russell,

On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 17:35:33 +0800
Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear Russell,
> 
> On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 10:25:46 +0100
> Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 04:50:07PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > > Dear Russell,
> > > 
> > > On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 09:26:23 +0100
> > > Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 01:19:30PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > > > > On Marvell Berlin SoCs, the cpu's local timer is shutdown when the cpu
> > > > > goes to a deep idle state, then the timer framework will be notified to
> > > > > use a broadcast timer instead. The broadcast timer uses dw-apb-ictl as
> > > > > interrupt chip, this patch adds irq_set_affinity support so that the
> > > > > going to deep idle state cpu can set the interrupt affinity of the
> > > > > broadcast interrupt to avoid unnecessary wakeups and IPIs.
> > > > 
> > > > NAK to this patch.
> > > > 
> > > > The real question is - if CPU0 is the CPU going offline, why is it
> > > > still receiving _any_ interrupts - all interrupts should be migrated
> > > > off it, including the chained interrupts.
> > > 
> > > I think it's due to broadcast timer interrupt. Let me describe the situation:
> > > 
> > > 1. cpu1 is going offline
> > > 2. cpuidle notify timer framework to use a broadcast timer instead due to localtimer
> > > is CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP
> > > 3. when timer is expired, CPU0 will be waken up by the timer interrupt if it has
> > > gone offline
> > > 4. CPU0 sends broadcast timer IPI to CPU1
> > 
> > If CPU1 is going offline, then CPU1 should have no interrupts delivered to
> 
> "sleep $i" on CPU1 will make the timer framework to wake up it at current_time+$i
> in the future then go offline, currently this is achieved by programming one
> broadcast timer. In our case, the broadcast timer interrupt will be routed to
> CPU0 by default, so CPU0 has to send broadcast timer IPI to CPU1.
> 
> > it.  However, this is not the situation you're testing - in your results
> > below, and your "simple test" you never take CPU1 offline.
> > 
> 
> when cpu1 executes "sleep $i", cpu1 will go to deepest cpuidle level, in our
> case it will go offline.
> 

I may misread your emails. I guess the "offline" means "cpu hot unplug"? Sorry
for misunderstanding.

This patch doesn't try to improve anything related with "hog unplug", it tries to
improve the following situation instead:

1. cpu1 is entering deepest cpuidle level, shutdown in our case.
2. cpuidle notify timer framework to use a broadcast timer instead due to localtimer
is CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP
3. when timer is expired, CPU0 will be waken up by the timer interrupt if it has
 been shutdown
4. CPU0 sends broadcast timer IPI to CPU1

Thanks,
Jisheng
--
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/