Re: [PATCH] irqchip/gic-v3: Workaround for GIC-700 erratum 2941627

[Marc Zyngier]

On Tue, 04 Jul 2023 16:27:45 +0100,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 03:44:50PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > +	return !((gic_irq_in_rdist(d)) || gic_irq(d) >= 8192 ||
> > > +		  cpumask_equal(irq_data_get_effective_affinity_mask(d),
> > > +				cpumask_of(smp_processor_id())));
> > 
> > I dislike this statement for multiple reasons:
> > 
> > - it is written as a negation, making it harder than strictly
> >   necessary to parse as it is the opposite of the comment above
> > 
> > - gic_irq_in_rdist() and gic_irq(d) >= 8192 are two ways of checking
> >   the interrupt range -- maybe we should just do that
> > 
> > - cpumask_equal() is *slow* if you have more that 64 CPUs, something
> >   that is increasingly common -- a better option would be to check
> >   whether the current CPU is in the mask or not, which would be enough
> >   as we only have a single affinity bit set
> > 
> > - smp_processor_id() can check for preemption, which is pointless
> >   here, as we're doing things under the irq_desc raw spinlock.
> > 
> > I would expect something like:
> > 
> > 	enum gic_intid_range range = get_intid_range(d);
> > 
> > 	return (range == SGI_RANGE || range == ESPI_RANGE) &&
> > 	       !cpumask_test_cpu(raw_smp_processor_id(),
> > 				 irq_data_get_effective_affinity_mask(d));
> > 
> 
> s/SGI/SPI - just noticed, for the records.

Indeed. As you can tell, I didn't really test the damn thing...

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.