From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@huawei.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
"loongarch@lists.linux.dev" <loongarch@lists.linux.dev>,
"linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"kvmarm@lists.linux.dev" <kvmarm@lists.linux.dev>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Miguel Luis <miguel.luis@oracle.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>,
"justin.he@arm.com" <justin.he@arm.com>,
"jianyong.wu@arm.com" <jianyong.wu@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/16] ACPI: processor: Register deferred CPUs from acpi_processor_get_info()
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 19:57:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240417195730.00006ab5@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0iFpkZZ9Ky6n5OiYsiNQ8_SRJv8hH0CLwPX=N4Ucc_snQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 19:59:50 +0200
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 7:09 PM Jonathan Cameron
> <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 17:59:36 +0200
> > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 5:38 PM Jonathan Cameron
> > > <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 16:03:51 +0100
> > > > Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@huawei.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > From: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 2:19 PM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The arm64 specific arch_register_cpu() call may defer CPU registration until
> > > > > > the ACPI interpreter is available and the _STA method can be evaluated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If this occurs, then a second attempt is made in acpi_processor_get_info().
> > > > > > Note that the arm64 specific call has not yet been added so for now this will
> > > > > > be called for the original hotplug case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For architectures that do not defer until the ACPI Processor driver loads
> > > > > > (e.g. x86), for initially present CPUs there will already be a CPU device. If
> > > > > > present do not try to register again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Systems can still be booted with 'acpi=off', or not include an ACPI
> > > > > > description at all as in these cases arch_register_cpu() will not have
> > > > > > deferred registration when first called.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This moves the CPU register logic back to a subsys_initcall(), while the
> > > > > > memory nodes will have been registered earlier.
> > > > > > Note this is where the call was prior to the cleanup series so there should be
> > > > > > no side effects of moving it back again for this specific case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [PATCH 00/21] Initial cleanups for vCPU HP.
> > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZVyz%2FVe5pPu8AWoA@shell.armlinux.org.uk/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > e.g. 5b95f94c3b9f ("x86/topology: Switch over to GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES")
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
> > > > > > Tested-by: Miguel Luis <miguel.luis@oracle.com>
> > > > > > Tested-by: Vishnu Pajjuri <vishnu@os.amperecomputing.com>
> > > > > > Tested-by: Jianyong Wu <jianyong.wu@arm.com>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
> > > > > > Co-developed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joanthan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > v6: Squash the two paths for conventional CPU Hotplug and arm64
> > > > > > vCPU HP.
> > > > > > v5: Update commit message to make it clear this is moving the
> > > > > > init back to where it was until very recently.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No longer change the condition in the earlier registration point
> > > > > > as that will be handled by the arm64 registration routine
> > > > > > deferring until called again here.
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c | 12 +++++++++++-
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> > > > > > index 7ecb13775d7f..0cac77961020 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> > > > > > @@ -356,8 +356,18 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_info(struct
> > > > > > acpi_device *device)
> > > > > > *
> > > > > > * NOTE: Even if the processor has a cpuid, it may not be present
> > > > > > * because cpuid <-> apicid mapping is persistent now.
> > > > > > + *
> > > > > > + * Note this allows 3 flows, it is up to the arch_register_cpu()
> > > > > > + * call to reject any that are not supported on a given architecture.
> > > > > > + * A) CPU becomes present.
> > > > > > + * B) Previously invalid logical CPU ID (Same as becoming present)
> > > > > > + * C) CPU already present and now being enabled (and wasn't
> > > > > > registered
> > > > > > + * early on an arch that doesn't defer to here)
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > - if (invalid_logical_cpuid(pr->id) || !cpu_present(pr->id)) {
> > > > > > + if ((!invalid_logical_cpuid(pr->id) && cpu_present(pr->id) &&
> > > > > > + !get_cpu_device(pr->id)) ||
> > > > > > + invalid_logical_cpuid(pr->id) ||
> > > > > > + !cpu_present(pr->id)) {
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Hi Salil,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for quick review!
> > > >
> > > > > Logic is clear but it is ugly. We should turn them into macro or inline.
> > > >
> > > > You've found the 'ugly' in this approach vs keeping them separate.
> > > >
> > > > For this version I wanted to keep it clear that indeed this condition
> > > > is a complex mess of different things (and to let people compare
> > > > it easily with the two paths in v5 to convinced themselves this
> > > > is the same)
> > > >
> > > > It's also a little tricky to do, so will need some thought.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think a simple acpi_cpu_is_hotplug() condition is useful
> > > > as it just moves the complexity away from where a reader is looking
> > > > and it would only be used in this one case.
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't separate well into finer grained subconditions because
> > > > (C) is a messy case of the vCPU HP case and a not done
> > > > something else earlier. The disadvantage of only deferring for
> > > > arm64 and not other architectures.
> > > >
> > > > The best I can quickly come up with is something like this:
> > > > #define acpi_cpu_not_present(cpu) \
> > > > (invalid_logical_cpuid(cpu) || !cpu_present(cpu))
> > > > #define acpi_cpu_not_enabled(cpu) \
> > > > (!invalid_logical_cpuid(cpu) || cpu_present(cpu))
> > > >
> > > > if ((apci_cpu_not_enabled(pr->id) && !get_cpu_device(pr->id) ||
> > > > acpi_cpu_not_present(pr->id))
> > > >
> > > > Which would still need the same amount of documentation. The
> > > > code still isn't enough for me to immediately be able to see
> > > > what is going on.
> > > >
> > > > So maybe worth it... I'm not sure. Rafael, you get to keep this
> > > > fun, what would you prefer?
> > >
> > > I would use a static inline function returning bool to carry out these
> > > checks with comments explaining the different cases in which 'true'
> > > needs to be returned.
> >
> > The following makes a subtle logic change (I'll retest tomorrow) but
> > I think that get_cpu_device(cpu) can never succeed in a path where
> > hotadd makes sense.
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Identify if the state transition indicates that hotadd_init
> > + * should be called.
> > + *
> > + * For acpi_processor_add() to be called, the reported state must
> > + * now be enabled and present. Conditions reflect prior state.
> > + */
> > +static inline bool acpi_processor_should_hotadd_init(int cpu)
> > +{
> > + /* Already register, initial registration was not deferred */
>
> "Already registered." I think.
>
> > + if (get_cpu_device(cpu))
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + /* Processor has become present */
> > + if (!cpu_present(cpu))
> > + return true;
> > +
> > + /* Logical cpuid currently invalid indicates hotadd */
> > + if (invalid_logical_cpuid(cpu))
> > + return true;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Previously present and the logical cpu id is valid.
> > + * Deferred registration now _STA can be queries, or
> > + * Hotadd due to enabled becoming true on an online capable
> > + * CPU.
> > + */
> > + if (cpu_present(cpu))
> > + return true;
>
> It returns true for both the cpu_present(cpu) and !cpu_present(cpu)
> cases, so will it ever return false except for when
> get_cpu_device(cpu) returns true?
It indeed looks suspicious. My logic is probably wrong. Will check
- I guess maybe pulling out the get_cpu_device(cpu) indeed flattens
this as you point out. Kind of makes sense if true.
Jonathan
>
> > +
> > + return false;
> > +}
> > +
> > static int acpi_processor_get_info(struct acpi_device *device)
> > {
> > union acpi_object object = { 0 };
> > @@ -356,18 +388,8 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_info(struct acpi_device *device)
> > *
> > * NOTE: Even if the processor has a cpuid, it may not be present
> > * because cpuid <-> apicid mapping is persistent now.
> > - *
> > - * Note this allows 3 flows, it is up to the arch_register_cpu()
> > - * call to reject any that are not supported on a given architecture.
> > - * A) CPU becomes present.
> > - * B) Previously invalid logical CPU ID (Same as becoming present)
> > - * C) CPU already present and now being enabled (and wasn't registered
> > - * early on an arch that doesn't defer to here)
> > */
> > - if ((!invalid_logical_cpuid(pr->id) && cpu_present(pr->id) &&
> > - !get_cpu_device(pr->id)) ||
> > - invalid_logical_cpuid(pr->id) ||
> > - !cpu_present(pr->id)) {
> > + if (acpi_processor_should_hotadd_init(pr->id)) {
> > ret = acpi_processor_hotadd_init(pr, device);
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-17 18:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-17 13:18 [PATCH v6 00/16] ACPI/arm64: add support for virtual cpu hotplug Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-17 13:18 ` [PATCH v6 01/16] ACPI: processor: Simplify initial onlining to use same path for cold and hotplug Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-17 13:18 ` [PATCH v6 02/16] cpu: Do not warn on arch_register_cpu() returning -EPROBE_DEFER Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-17 14:01 ` Russell King (Oracle)
2024-04-17 14:41 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-17 13:18 ` [PATCH v6 03/16] ACPI: processor: Drop duplicated check on _STA (enabled + present) Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-17 13:18 ` [PATCH v6 04/16] ACPI: processor: Move checks and availability of acpi_processor earlier Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-17 15:08 ` Salil Mehta
2024-04-17 15:19 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-18 8:16 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-17 13:18 ` [PATCH v6 05/16] ACPI: processor: Add acpi_get_processor_handle() helper Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-17 13:18 ` [PATCH v6 06/16] ACPI: processor: Register deferred CPUs from acpi_processor_get_info() Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-17 15:03 ` Salil Mehta
2024-04-17 15:38 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-17 15:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-04-17 17:09 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-17 17:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-04-17 18:57 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2024-04-17 13:19 ` [PATCH v6 07/16] ACPI: scan: switch to flags for acpi_scan_check_and_detach(); Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-17 13:19 ` [PATCH v6 08/16] ACPI: Add post_eject to struct acpi_scan_handler for cpu hotplug Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-17 13:19 ` [PATCH v6 09/16] arm64: acpi: Move get_cpu_for_acpi_id() to a header Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-17 13:19 ` [PATCH v6 10/16] irqchip/gic-v3: Don't return errors from gic_acpi_match_gicc() Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-17 13:19 ` [PATCH v6 11/16] irqchip/gic-v3: Add support for ACPI's disabled but 'online capable' CPUs Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-17 13:19 ` [PATCH v6 12/16] arm64: psci: Ignore DENIED CPUs Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-17 13:19 ` [PATCH v6 13/16] arm64: arch_register_cpu() variant to check if an ACPI handle is now available Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-17 16:33 ` Salil Mehta
2024-04-17 16:55 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-17 17:03 ` Salil Mehta
2024-04-17 13:19 ` [PATCH v6 14/16] arm64: Kconfig: Enable hotplug CPU on arm64 if ACPI_PROCESSOR is enabled Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-17 13:19 ` [PATCH v6 15/16] arm64: document virtual CPU hotplug's expectations Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-17 13:19 ` [PATCH v6 16/16] cpumask: Add enabled cpumask for present CPUs that can be brought online Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-17 17:01 ` Salil Mehta
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240417195730.00006ab5@Huawei.com \
--to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=jean-philippe@linaro.org \
--cc=jianyong.wu@arm.com \
--cc=justin.he@arm.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
--cc=loongarch@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=miguel.luis@oracle.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=salil.mehta@huawei.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).