| Message ID | CANqRtoT=gMKBHG8qJWc7FjcYFaaf5hBzzv8=AOLneoveasmKoA@mail.gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 08/29/13 01:41, Magnus Damm wrote: > Thanks for your suggestion. Yes, there was indeed some confusion. Now > after diving into the code a bit deeper I can finally understand what > you mean. > > Instead of adjusting the rating I've changed the cpumask member like this: > > --- 0001/drivers/clocksource/em_sti.c > +++ work/drivers/clocksource/em_sti.c 2013-08-29 17:33:16.000000000 +0900 > @@ -301,7 +301,7 @@ static void em_sti_register_clockevent(s > ced->name = dev_name(&p->pdev->dev); > ced->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT; > ced->rating = 200; > - ced->cpumask = cpumask_of(0); > + ced->cpumask = cpu_all_mask; It would be better to use cpu_possible_mask. > ced->set_next_event = em_sti_clock_event_next; > ced->set_mode = em_sti_clock_event_mode; > > Without the cpumask fix or without the earlier rating fix the > following interrupt count can be seen in /proc/interrupts on KZM9D: > > 157: 140 0 GIC 157 e0180000.sti > 160: 0 0 e0050000.gpio 1 eth0 > IPI0: 0 0 CPU wakeup interrupts > IPI1: 0 0 Timer broadcast interrupts > > Above, notice how no IPI1 interrupts seem to be arriving. > > With the cpumask fix above the interrupt count becomes like this: > > 157: 559 0 GIC 157 e0180000.sti > 160: 0 0 e0050000.gpio 1 eth0 > IPI0: 0 0 CPU wakeup interrupts > IPI1: 0 601 Timer broadcast interrupts > > Would this be in line with your expectation? Yes that is what I'm saying. What is the output of cat /proc/timer_list?
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 08/29/13 01:41, Magnus Damm wrote: >> Thanks for your suggestion. Yes, there was indeed some confusion. Now >> after diving into the code a bit deeper I can finally understand what >> you mean. >> >> Instead of adjusting the rating I've changed the cpumask member like this: >> >> --- 0001/drivers/clocksource/em_sti.c >> +++ work/drivers/clocksource/em_sti.c 2013-08-29 17:33:16.000000000 +0900 >> @@ -301,7 +301,7 @@ static void em_sti_register_clockevent(s >> ced->name = dev_name(&p->pdev->dev); >> ced->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT; >> ced->rating = 200; >> - ced->cpumask = cpumask_of(0); >> + ced->cpumask = cpu_all_mask; > > It would be better to use cpu_possible_mask. I agree, thanks. >> ced->set_next_event = em_sti_clock_event_next; >> ced->set_mode = em_sti_clock_event_mode; >> >> Without the cpumask fix or without the earlier rating fix the >> following interrupt count can be seen in /proc/interrupts on KZM9D: >> >> 157: 140 0 GIC 157 e0180000.sti >> 160: 0 0 e0050000.gpio 1 eth0 >> IPI0: 0 0 CPU wakeup interrupts >> IPI1: 0 0 Timer broadcast interrupts >> >> Above, notice how no IPI1 interrupts seem to be arriving. >> >> With the cpumask fix above the interrupt count becomes like this: >> >> 157: 559 0 GIC 157 e0180000.sti >> 160: 0 0 e0050000.gpio 1 eth0 >> IPI0: 0 0 CPU wakeup interrupts >> IPI1: 0 601 Timer broadcast interrupts >> >> Would this be in line with your expectation? > > Yes that is what I'm saying. What is the output of cat /proc/timer_list? / # head -n 60 foo Timer List Version: v0.7 HRTIMER_MAX_CLOCK_BASES: 4 now at 543066528320 nsecs cpu: 0 clock 0: .base: c066f5f8 .index: 0 .resolution: 7812500 nsecs .get_time: ktime_get active timers: #0: <c0670148>, menu_hrtimer_notify, S:01 # expires at 543066282109-543066282109 nsecs [in -246211 to -246211 nsecs] clock 1: .base: c066f630 .index: 1 .resolution: 7812500 nsecs .get_time: ktime_get_real active timers: clock 2: .base: c066f668 .index: 2 .resolution: 7812500 nsecs .get_time: ktime_get_boottime active timers: clock 3: .base: c066f6a0 .index: 3 .resolution: 7812500 nsecs .get_time: ktime_get_clocktai active timers: cpu: 1 clock 0: .base: c06775f8 .index: 0 .resolution: 7812500 nsecs .get_time: ktime_get active timers: clock 1: .base: c0677630 .index: 1 .resolution: 7812500 nsecs .get_time: ktime_get_real active timers: clock 2: .base: c0677668 .index: 2 .resolution: 7812500 nsecs .get_time: ktime_get_boottime active timers: clock 3: .base: c06776a0 .index: 3 .resolution: 7812500 nsecs .get_time: ktime_get_clocktai active timers: Tick Device: mode: 0 Broadcast device Clock Event Device: e0180000.sti max_delta_ns: 131071523464981 min_delta_ns: 61034 mult: 70369 shift: 31 mode: 3 next_event: 543070312500 nsecs set_next_event: em_sti_clock_event_next set_mode: em_sti_clock_event_mode event_handler: tick_handle_periodic_broadcast retries: 0 tick_broadcast_mask: 00000003 Tick Device: mode: 0 Per CPU device: 0 Clock Event Device: dummy_timer max_delta_ns: 0 min_delta_ns: 0 mult: 1 shift: 0 mode: 1 next_event: 9223372036854775807 nsecs set_next_event: <00000000> set_mode: broadcast_timer_set_mode event_handler: tick_handle_periodic retries: 0 Tick Device: mode: 0 Per CPU device: 1 Clock Event Device: dummy_timer max_delta_ns: 0 min_delta_ns: 0 mult: 0 shift: 0 mode: 1 next_event: 9223372036854775807 nsecs set_next_event: <00000000> set_mode: dummy_timer_set_mode event_handler: tick_handle_periodic retries: 0 Thanks for your help! / magnus
--- 0001/drivers/clocksource/em_sti.c +++ work/drivers/clocksource/em_sti.c 2013-08-29 17:33:16.000000000 +0900 @@ -301,7 +301,7 @@ static void em_sti_register_clockevent(s ced->name = dev_name(&p->pdev->dev); ced->features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT; ced->rating = 200; - ced->cpumask = cpumask_of(0); + ced->cpumask = cpu_all_mask; ced->set_next_event = em_sti_clock_event_next; ced->set_mode = em_sti_clock_event_mode;