| Message ID | 1476915664-27231-4-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 06:21:04PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote: > This reverts commit f7eca374f000 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: separate ISA penalty > calculation") and commit 487cf917ed0d ("revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: remove > redundant code in acpi_irq_penalty_init()""). > > Now that we understand the real issue (SCI and ISA penalty getting > calculated before ACPI start), there is no need for special handling > for ISA interrupts. > > Let's try to simplify the code one more time to share code. I'm sort of OK with this, but it's not exactly a revert of the above (the commits you mention don't check "link->irq.initialized == 1". Previously acpi_irq_penalty_init() looked at _PRS info ("possible" IRQs), but now we won't. Maybe that's good; I dunno. But it should be mentioned. 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? > Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> > --- > arch/x86/pci/acpi.c | 1 - > drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 44 +++++--------------------------------------- > include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h | 1 - > 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c > index 3cd6983..b2a4e2a 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c > +++ b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c > @@ -396,7 +396,6 @@ int __init pci_acpi_init(void) > return -ENODEV; > > printk(KERN_INFO "PCI: Using ACPI for IRQ routing\n"); > - acpi_irq_penalty_init(); > pcibios_enable_irq = acpi_pci_irq_enable; > pcibios_disable_irq = acpi_pci_irq_disable; > x86_init.pci.init_irq = x86_init_noop; > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c > index 294b190..dd14d78 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c > @@ -478,7 +478,8 @@ static int acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(int irq) > * If a link is active, penalize its IRQ heavily > * so we try to choose a different IRQ. > */ > - if (link->irq.active && link->irq.active == irq) > + if ((link->irq.active && link->irq.active == irq) && > + (link->irq.initialized == 1)) > penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING; > > /* > @@ -501,45 +502,10 @@ static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq) > penalty += sci_penalty; > > if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS) > - return penalty + acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq]; > + penalty += acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq]; > > - return penalty + acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq); > -} > - > -int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void) > -{ > - struct acpi_pci_link *link; > - int i; > - > - /* > - * Update penalties to facilitate IRQ balancing. > - */ > - list_for_each_entry(link, &acpi_link_list, list) { > - > - /* > - * reflect the possible and active irqs in the penalty table -- > - * useful for breaking ties. > - */ > - if (link->irq.possible_count) { > - int penalty = > - PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE / > - link->irq.possible_count; > - > - for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) { > - if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS) > - acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq. > - possible[i]] += > - penalty; > - } > - > - } else if (link->irq.active && > - (link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)) { > - acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] += > - PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE; > - } > - } > - > - return 0; > + penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq); > + return penalty; > } > > static int acpi_irq_balance = -1; /* 0: static, 1: balance */ > diff --git a/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h b/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h > index 29c6912..797ae2e 100644 > --- a/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h > +++ b/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h > @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ > > /* ACPI PCI Interrupt Link (pci_link.c) */ > > -int acpi_irq_penalty_init(void); > int acpi_pci_link_allocate_irq(acpi_handle handle, int index, int *triggering, > int *polarity, char **name); > int acpi_pci_link_free_irq(acpi_handle handle); > -- > 1.9.1 > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 10/20/2016 7:31 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> Let's try to simplify the code one more time to share code. > I'm sort of OK with this, but it's not exactly a revert of the above > (the commits you mention don't check "link->irq.initialized == 1". I can split the initialized bit. If I remove it from this commit, it can break the git bisect. That's why, I folded it into this review. I briefly mentioned about it in the cover letter. It might not be quiet clear. > > Previously acpi_irq_penalty_init() looked at _PRS info ("possible" > IRQs), but now we won't. Maybe that's good; I dunno. But it should > be mentioned. I'm directing all IRQs to acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty function. acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty checks for the possible values here from _PRS. /* * penalize the IRQs PCI might use, but not as severely. */ for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) if (link->irq.possible[i] == irq) penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE / link->irq.possible_count; > > 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 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2547605 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.
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 > > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2547605 > > 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 exists. 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 mentioned. Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 20 October 2016 at 09:21, Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> wrote: > This reverts commit f7eca374f000 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: separate ISA penalty > calculation") and commit 487cf917ed0d ("revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: remove > redundant code in acpi_irq_penalty_init()""). > > Now that we understand the real issue (SCI and ISA penalty getting > calculated before ACPI start), there is no need for special handling > for ISA interrupts. > > Let's try to simplify the code one more time to share code. > > Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> > --- > arch/x86/pci/acpi.c | 1 - > drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 44 +++++--------------------------------------- > include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h | 1 - > 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c > index 3cd6983..b2a4e2a 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c > +++ b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c > @@ -396,7 +396,6 @@ int __init pci_acpi_init(void) > return -ENODEV; > > printk(KERN_INFO "PCI: Using ACPI for IRQ routing\n"); > - acpi_irq_penalty_init(); > pcibios_enable_irq = acpi_pci_irq_enable; > pcibios_disable_irq = acpi_pci_irq_disable; > x86_init.pci.init_irq = x86_init_noop; > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c > index 294b190..dd14d78 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c > @@ -478,7 +478,8 @@ static int acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(int irq) > * If a link is active, penalize its IRQ heavily > * so we try to choose a different IRQ. > */ > - if (link->irq.active && link->irq.active == irq) > + if ((link->irq.active && link->irq.active == irq) && > + (link->irq.initialized == 1)) > penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING; > > /* > @@ -501,45 +502,10 @@ static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq) > penalty += sci_penalty; > > if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS) > - return penalty + acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq]; > + penalty += acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq]; > > - return penalty + acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq); > -} > - > -int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void) > -{ > - struct acpi_pci_link *link; > - int i; > - > - /* > - * Update penalties to facilitate IRQ balancing. > - */ > - list_for_each_entry(link, &acpi_link_list, list) { > - > - /* > - * reflect the possible and active irqs in the penalty table -- > - * useful for breaking ties. > - */ > - if (link->irq.possible_count) { > - int penalty = > - PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE / > - link->irq.possible_count; > - > - for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) { > - if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS) > - acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq. > - possible[i]] += > - penalty; > - } > - > - } else if (link->irq.active && > - (link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)) { > - acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] += > - PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE; > - } > - } > - > - return 0; > + penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq); > + return penalty; > } > > static int acpi_irq_balance = -1; /* 0: static, 1: balance */ > diff --git a/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h b/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h > index 29c6912..797ae2e 100644 > --- a/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h > +++ b/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h > @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ > > /* ACPI PCI Interrupt Link (pci_link.c) */ > > -int acpi_irq_penalty_init(void); > int acpi_pci_link_allocate_irq(acpi_handle handle, int index, int *triggering, > int *polarity, char **name); > int acpi_pci_link_free_irq(acpi_handle handle); This series fixes one or more network adapters not working in Linux 32-bit x86 guest running inside VirtualBox if I have 4 network adapters enabled. The following message no longer appears in the kernel log: ACPI: No IRQ available for PCI Interrupt Link [LNKD]. Try pci=noacpi or acpi=off Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 10/22/2016 7:59 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > 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. > OK > Are we all set to go now? I think I've acked the patches you > mentioned. Yes, I'll post a follow up with your recommendations.
diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c index 3cd6983..b2a4e2a 100644 --- a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c +++ b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c @@ -396,7 +396,6 @@ int __init pci_acpi_init(void) return -ENODEV; printk(KERN_INFO "PCI: Using ACPI for IRQ routing\n"); - acpi_irq_penalty_init(); pcibios_enable_irq = acpi_pci_irq_enable; pcibios_disable_irq = acpi_pci_irq_disable; x86_init.pci.init_irq = x86_init_noop; diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c index 294b190..dd14d78 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c @@ -478,7 +478,8 @@ static int acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(int irq) * If a link is active, penalize its IRQ heavily * so we try to choose a different IRQ. */ - if (link->irq.active && link->irq.active == irq) + if ((link->irq.active && link->irq.active == irq) && + (link->irq.initialized == 1)) penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING; /* @@ -501,45 +502,10 @@ static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq) penalty += sci_penalty; if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS) - return penalty + acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq]; + penalty += acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq]; - return penalty + acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq); -} - -int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void) -{ - struct acpi_pci_link *link; - int i; - - /* - * Update penalties to facilitate IRQ balancing. - */ - list_for_each_entry(link, &acpi_link_list, list) { - - /* - * reflect the possible and active irqs in the penalty table -- - * useful for breaking ties. - */ - if (link->irq.possible_count) { - int penalty = - PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE / - link->irq.possible_count; - - for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) { - if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS) - acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq. - possible[i]] += - penalty; - } - - } else if (link->irq.active && - (link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)) { - acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] += - PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE; - } - } - - return 0; + penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq); + return penalty; } static int acpi_irq_balance = -1; /* 0: static, 1: balance */ diff --git a/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h b/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h index 29c6912..797ae2e 100644 --- a/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h +++ b/include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ /* ACPI PCI Interrupt Link (pci_link.c) */ -int acpi_irq_penalty_init(void); int acpi_pci_link_allocate_irq(acpi_handle handle, int index, int *triggering, int *polarity, char **name); int acpi_pci_link_free_irq(acpi_handle handle);
This reverts commit f7eca374f000 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: separate ISA penalty calculation") and commit 487cf917ed0d ("revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: remove redundant code in acpi_irq_penalty_init()""). Now that we understand the real issue (SCI and ISA penalty getting calculated before ACPI start), there is no need for special handling for ISA interrupts. Let's try to simplify the code one more time to share code. Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> --- arch/x86/pci/acpi.c | 1 - drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 44 +++++--------------------------------------- include/acpi/acpi_drivers.h | 1 - 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)