[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] xen: implement IRQ_WORK_VECTOR handler
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 02:09:32PM +0800, Lin Ming wrote: > Signed-off-by: Lin Ming <mlin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/x86/include/asm/xen/events.h | 1 + > arch/x86/xen/smp.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/events.h > b/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/events.h > index 1df3541..cc146d5 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/events.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/events.h > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ enum ipi_vector { > XEN_CALL_FUNCTION_VECTOR, > XEN_CALL_FUNCTION_SINGLE_VECTOR, > XEN_SPIN_UNLOCK_VECTOR, > + XEN_IRQ_WORK_VECTOR, > > XEN_NR_IPIS, > }; > diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/smp.c b/arch/x86/xen/smp.c > index 2dc6628..92ad12d 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/xen/smp.c > +++ b/arch/x86/xen/smp.c > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ > #include <linux/err.h> > #include <linux/slab.h> > #include <linux/smp.h> > +#include <linux/irq_work.h> > > #include <asm/paravirt.h> > #include <asm/desc.h> > @@ -41,10 +42,12 @@ cpumask_var_t xen_cpu_initialized_map; > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, xen_resched_irq); > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, xen_callfunc_irq); > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, xen_callfuncsingle_irq); > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, xen_irq_work); > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, xen_debug_irq) = -1; > > static irqreturn_t xen_call_function_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id); > static irqreturn_t xen_call_function_single_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id); > +static irqreturn_t xen_irq_work_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id); > > /* > * Reschedule call back. > @@ -143,6 +146,17 @@ static int xen_smp_intr_init(unsigned int cpu) > goto fail; > per_cpu(xen_callfuncsingle_irq, cpu) = rc; > > + callfunc_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "irqwork%d", cpu); > + rc = bind_ipi_to_irqhandler(XEN_IRQ_WORK_VECTOR, > + cpu, > + xen_irq_work_interrupt, > + IRQF_DISABLED|IRQF_PERCPU|IRQF_NOBALANCING, > + callfunc_name, > + NULL); > + if (rc < 0) > + goto fail; > + per_cpu(xen_irq_work, cpu) = rc; > + > return 0; > > fail: > @@ -155,6 +169,8 @@ static int xen_smp_intr_init(unsigned int cpu) > if (per_cpu(xen_callfuncsingle_irq, cpu) >= 0) > unbind_from_irqhandler(per_cpu(xen_callfuncsingle_irq, cpu), > NULL); > + if (per_cpu(xen_irq_work, cpu) >= 0) > + unbind_from_irqhandler(per_cpu(xen_irq_work, cpu), NULL); > > return rc; > } > @@ -509,6 +525,9 @@ static inline int xen_map_vector(int vector) > case CALL_FUNCTION_SINGLE_VECTOR: > xen_vector = XEN_CALL_FUNCTION_SINGLE_VECTOR; > break; > + case IRQ_WORK_VECTOR: > + xen_vector = XEN_IRQ_WORK_VECTOR; > + break; > default: > xen_vector = -1; > printk(KERN_ERR "xen: vector 0x%x is not implemented\n", > @@ -588,6 +607,16 @@ static irqreturn_t > xen_call_function_single_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id) > return IRQ_HANDLED; > } > > +static irqreturn_t xen_irq_work_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id) > +{ > + irq_enter(); > + inc_irq_stat(apic_irq_work_irqs); > + irq_work_run(); I think this usually done the other way around: irq_work_run() inc_irq_stat(apic_irq_work_irqs) Or is there an excellent reason for doing it this way? > + irq_exit(); > + > + return IRQ_HANDLED; > +} > + > static const struct smp_ops xen_smp_ops __initconst = { > .smp_prepare_boot_cpu = xen_smp_prepare_boot_cpu, > .smp_prepare_cpus = xen_smp_prepare_cpus, > @@ -634,6 +663,7 @@ static void xen_hvm_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu) > unbind_from_irqhandler(per_cpu(xen_callfunc_irq, cpu), NULL); > unbind_from_irqhandler(per_cpu(xen_debug_irq, cpu), NULL); > unbind_from_irqhandler(per_cpu(xen_callfuncsingle_irq, cpu), NULL); > + unbind_from_irqhandler(per_cpu(xen_irq_work, cpu), NULL); > native_cpu_die(cpu); > } > > -- > 1.7.2.5 _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |