Re: [PATCH V4 3/3] Revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: separate ISA penalty calculation"
From: Bjorn Helgaas
Date: Sat Oct 22 2016 - 19:59:26 EST
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 07:58:57PM -0700, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 10/20/2016 7:31 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > And I don't think it fixes a user-visible problem, so it doesn't need
> > to be applied immediately. I'm not sure this is worth doing by
> > itself; maybe it should wait until we can do more cleanup and think
> > about all these issues together?
> It does fix the PCI_USING penalty assignment.
> if (link->irq.active && link->irq.active == irq)
> penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> If we drop this patch, then we need
> [PATCH V3 1/3] ACPI, PCI IRQ: add PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts
> as somebody needs to increment the penalty with PCI_USING when IRQ is assigned
> for a given ISA IRQ.
> We might as well take [PATCH V4 1/3], [PATCH V4 2/3] and [PATCH V3 1/3]
> for this regression.
It sounds like either V3 1/3 or V4 3/3 will fix the regression. The
V3 1/3 patch is much smaller and essentially makes this piece look
like it did in v4.6.
The V4 3/3 patch removes acpi_irq_penalty_init() and compensates by
using acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty() for ISA IRQs again. But
acpi_irq_penalty_init() added PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE for _CRS, and
only if there was no _PRS, while acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty() always
adds PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING for _CRS, regardless of whether _PRS
Since V4 3/3 is so much bigger and makes this quite subtle change in
how _CRS is handled, I like V3 1/3 better.
Are we all set to go now? I think I've acked the patches you