Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle period

From	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle period
Date	2016-01-18 14:30 +0100
Message-ID	<qSi2C-1bm-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<qNYc9-2Y2-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <qNYc9-2Y2-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <qOHsB-gc-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 01/08/2016 04:43 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016, Daniel Lezcano wrote:

[ ... ]

>> +	/*
>> +	 * For all the irq already setup, assign the timing callback.
>> +	 * All interrupts with their desc NULL will be discarded.
>> +	 */
>> +	for_each_irq_desc(irq, desc)
>> +		sched_irq_timing_setup(irq, desc->action);
>
> No, no, no. This belongs into the core code register_irq_timings() function
> which installs the handler into the irq descs with the proper protections and
> once it has done that enables the static key.
>
> The above is completely unprotected against interrupts being setup or even
> freed concurrently.
>
> Aside of that, you call that setup function in setup_irq for each action() and
> here you call it only for the first one.

Hi Thomas,

I went through the different comments and almost finished the changes 
but I think the 'register_ops' approach, which happens after some irq 
were setup, introduces some useless complexity and because of the desc 
lock section, the ops can't do memory allocation. Before going further, 
I am wondering if declaring the irq_timings_ops statically (read without 
'register_ops' - hence without a init time dependency) and calling the 
init/free ops from alloc_desc/free_desc wouldn't be cleaner and simpler.

What do you think ?

   -- Daniel

-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle  period Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2016-01-18 14:30 +0100
  Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle  period Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-01-20 16:50 +0100
    [RFC V2 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle period Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2016-01-20 17:10 +0100
      Re: [RFC V2 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle  period Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> - 2016-01-20 18:50 +0100
        Re: [RFC V2 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle  period Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-01-20 19:50 +0100
        Re: [RFC V2 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle  period Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2016-01-21 11:10 +0100
      Re: [RFC V2 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle  period Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-01-20 20:10 +0100
        Re: [RFC V2 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle  period Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> - 2016-01-20 20:20 +0100
          Re: [RFC V2 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle  period Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-01-20 20:40 +0100
      Re: [RFC V2 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle  period Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-01-20 20:40 +0100
      Re: [RFC V2 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle  period Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-01-20 20:50 +0100
        Re: [RFC V2 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle  period Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> - 2016-01-20 21:00 +0100
          Re: [RFC V2 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle  period Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-01-20 21:30 +0100
      Re: [RFC V2 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle  period Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-01-20 21:00 +0100
        Re: [RFC V2 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle  period Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2016-01-21 15:00 +0100
          Re: [RFC V2 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle  period Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-01-21 15:20 +0100
    [RFC V2 0/2] IRQ based next prediction Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2016-01-20 17:10 +0100
    [RFC V2 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle period Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2016-01-20 17:10 +0100
      Re: [RFC V2 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle  period Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> - 2016-01-20 21:20 +0100
        Re: [RFC V2 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle  period Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2016-01-21 14:10 +0100
    [RFC V2 0/2] IRQ based next prediction Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2016-01-20 17:10 +0100
      [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2016-01-20 17:10 +0100
        Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-01-20 19:00 +0100
          Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2016-01-21 10:30 +0100
            Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-01-21 11:30 +0100
        Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-01-20 20:10 +0100
          Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-01-20 21:00 +0100
            Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> - 2016-01-20 21:10 +0100
            Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-01-20 21:30 +0100
              Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-01-20 21:30 +0100
            Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2016-01-21 11:00 +0100
              Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-01-21 11:10 +0100
                Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2016-01-21 13:40 +0100
                Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-01-21 21:30 +0100
              Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-01-21 15:00 +0100
                Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2016-01-21 15:20 +0100
                Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-01-21 20:00 +0100
                Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-01-22 11:20 +0100
          Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2016-01-21 10:30 +0100
        Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-01-20 20:30 +0100
          Re: [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2016-01-21 11:00 +0100
      [RFC V2 1/2] irq: Add a framework to measure interrupt timings Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2016-01-20 17:10 +0100

csiph-web