Re: [PATCH 0/4] time: dynamic irq affinity

[Santosh Shilimkar]

On Monday 11 March 2013 02:58 PM, Rickard Andersson wrote:
> On 03/11/2013 10:12 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Monday 11 March 2013 02:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> On 03/11/2013 04:24 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>>> On Sunday 10 March 2013 11:52 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>>>> I don't think it is the case for all the ARM platforms, at least we
>>>>> tested it on vexpress TC2 and u8500, and the number of IPI were reduced
>>>>> very significantly increasing the idle time for cpu0. TC2 will need
>>>>> another optimization on another area for the idle wake up to gain real
>>>>> improvements.
>>>>>
>>>> You are missing my point. TC2 can be an exception since the SGI can wakeup
>>>> CPUs even from low power states where local timer's are stalled. Is that
>>>> the case with U8500 ?
>>> Well, the cpuidle driver is not going into a deep idle state to check
>>> this out.
>>>
>>> AFAICT this board has a specific firmware with the PRCMU (a device
>>> managing the power on the board) and it replaces the GIC when going to
>>> deep idle state, especially by reconnecting the GIC to the A9 cores
>>> automatically when an interrupt occurs.
>>>
>> But most likely it will be limited to peripheral interrupts. SGI's
>> are per-cpu irq's so you need to check that part.
>>
> In the U8500 case, when the first CPU is woken up it will work ok for that CPU to send an IPI to the other CPU.
> 
Nice. So in your case, IPI's will always work as long as one of the CPU is
active.

Regards
Santosh

--
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/