| Message ID | 1531151136-18297-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 5b5ccbc2b041f98f26b984e013d303b7f9e6fb8e |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] Revert "tick: Prefer a lower rating device only if it's CPU local device" | expand |
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 8:45 AM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > This reverts commit 1332a90558013ae4242e3dd7934bdcdeafb06c0d. > > The original issue was not because of incorrect checking of cpumask for > both new and old tick device. It was incorrectly analysed was due to the > misunderstanding of the comment and misinterpretation of the return > value from tick_check_preferred. The main issue is with the clockevent > driver that sets the cpumask to cpu_all_mask instead of cpu_possible_mask. > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> Tested-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> And verified to fix a regression on the 32-bit ARM platform mesion8b-odroidc1. Thanks, Kevin > --- > kernel/time/tick-common.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Hi Thomas, > > As mentioned in the other thread, this needs to be reverted. Sorry for > the misunderstanding the original issue and producing wrong fix. > > Regards, > Sudeep > > diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-common.c b/kernel/time/tick-common.c > index b7005dd21ec1..14de3727b18e 100644 > --- a/kernel/time/tick-common.c > +++ b/kernel/time/tick-common.c > @@ -277,8 +277,7 @@ static bool tick_check_preferred(struct clock_event_device *curdev, > */ > return !curdev || > newdev->rating > curdev->rating || > - (!cpumask_equal(curdev->cpumask, newdev->cpumask) && > - !tick_check_percpu(curdev, newdev, smp_processor_id())); > + !cpumask_equal(curdev->cpumask, newdev->cpumask); > } > > /* > -- > 2.7.4 >
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 8:24 PM Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 8:45 AM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > This reverts commit 1332a90558013ae4242e3dd7934bdcdeafb06c0d. > > > > The original issue was not because of incorrect checking of cpumask for > > both new and old tick device. It was incorrectly analysed was due to the > > misunderstanding of the comment and misinterpretation of the return > > value from tick_check_preferred. The main issue is with the clockevent > > driver that sets the cpumask to cpu_all_mask instead of cpu_possible_mask. > > > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > Tested-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> Tested-by: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> > And verified to fix a regression on the 32-bit ARM platform mesion8b-odroidc1. I also tested it on Meson8b as well as Meson8m2 Regards Martin
diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-common.c b/kernel/time/tick-common.c index b7005dd21ec1..14de3727b18e 100644 --- a/kernel/time/tick-common.c +++ b/kernel/time/tick-common.c @@ -277,8 +277,7 @@ static bool tick_check_preferred(struct clock_event_device *curdev, */ return !curdev || newdev->rating > curdev->rating || - (!cpumask_equal(curdev->cpumask, newdev->cpumask) && - !tick_check_percpu(curdev, newdev, smp_processor_id())); + !cpumask_equal(curdev->cpumask, newdev->cpumask); } /*
This reverts commit 1332a90558013ae4242e3dd7934bdcdeafb06c0d. The original issue was not because of incorrect checking of cpumask for both new and old tick device. It was incorrectly analysed was due to the misunderstanding of the comment and misinterpretation of the return value from tick_check_preferred. The main issue is with the clockevent driver that sets the cpumask to cpu_all_mask instead of cpu_possible_mask. Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> --- kernel/time/tick-common.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) Hi Thomas, As mentioned in the other thread, this needs to be reverted. Sorry for the misunderstanding the original issue and producing wrong fix. Regards, Sudeep -- 2.7.4