mirror of
https://mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn/git/linux.git
synced 2024-11-13 14:24:11 +08:00
irqchip/gic: Atomically update affinity
The GIC driver uses a RMW sequence to update the affinity, and
relies on the gic_lock_irqsave/gic_unlock_irqrestore sequences
to update it atomically.
But these sequences only expand into anything meaningful if
the BL_SWITCHER option is selected, which almost never happens.
It also turns out that using a RMW and locks is just as silly,
as the GIC distributor supports byte accesses for the GICD_TARGETRn
registers, which when used make the update atomic by definition.
Drop the terminally broken code and replace it by a byte write.
Fixes: 04c8b0f82c
("irqchip/gic: Make locking a BL_SWITCHER only feature")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
559fe74ba6
commit
005c34ae4b
@ -329,10 +329,8 @@ static int gic_irq_set_vcpu_affinity(struct irq_data *d, void *vcpu)
|
||||
static int gic_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d, const struct cpumask *mask_val,
|
||||
bool force)
|
||||
{
|
||||
void __iomem *reg = gic_dist_base(d) + GIC_DIST_TARGET + (gic_irq(d) & ~3);
|
||||
unsigned int cpu, shift = (gic_irq(d) % 4) * 8;
|
||||
u32 val, mask, bit;
|
||||
unsigned long flags;
|
||||
void __iomem *reg = gic_dist_base(d) + GIC_DIST_TARGET + gic_irq(d);
|
||||
unsigned int cpu;
|
||||
|
||||
if (!force)
|
||||
cpu = cpumask_any_and(mask_val, cpu_online_mask);
|
||||
@ -342,13 +340,7 @@ static int gic_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d, const struct cpumask *mask_val,
|
||||
if (cpu >= NR_GIC_CPU_IF || cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
|
||||
return -EINVAL;
|
||||
|
||||
gic_lock_irqsave(flags);
|
||||
mask = 0xff << shift;
|
||||
bit = gic_cpu_map[cpu] << shift;
|
||||
val = readl_relaxed(reg) & ~mask;
|
||||
writel_relaxed(val | bit, reg);
|
||||
gic_unlock_irqrestore(flags);
|
||||
|
||||
writeb_relaxed(gic_cpu_map[cpu], reg);
|
||||
irq_data_update_effective_affinity(d, cpumask_of(cpu));
|
||||
|
||||
return IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_DONE;
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user