| Message ID | 20200114153054.77082-3-frankja@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | s390x: smp: Improve smp code and reset checks | expand |
On 14/01/2020 16.30, Janosch Frank wrote: > Let's stop and start instead of using setup to run a function on a > cpu. > > Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> > --- > s390x/smp.c | 19 ++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/s390x/smp.c b/s390x/smp.c > index 4dee43e..767d167 100644 > --- a/s390x/smp.c > +++ b/s390x/smp.c > @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ static void test_start(void) > psw.mask = extract_psw_mask(); > psw.addr = (unsigned long)test_func; > > - smp_cpu_setup(1, psw); > + smp_cpu_start(1, psw); > wait_for_flag(); > report(1, "start"); > } > @@ -131,9 +131,8 @@ static void test_ecall(void) > > report_prefix_push("ecall"); > testflag = 0; > - smp_cpu_destroy(1); > > - smp_cpu_setup(1, psw); > + smp_cpu_start(1, psw); > wait_for_flag(); > testflag = 0; > sigp(1, SIGP_EXTERNAL_CALL, 0, NULL); > @@ -166,9 +165,8 @@ static void test_emcall(void) > > report_prefix_push("emcall"); > testflag = 0; > - smp_cpu_destroy(1); > > - smp_cpu_setup(1, psw); > + smp_cpu_start(1, psw); > wait_for_flag(); > testflag = 0; > sigp(1, SIGP_EMERGENCY_SIGNAL, 0, NULL); > @@ -186,7 +184,7 @@ static void test_reset_initial(void) > psw.addr = (unsigned long)test_func; > > report_prefix_push("reset initial"); > - smp_cpu_setup(1, psw); > + smp_cpu_start(1, psw); > > sigp_retry(1, SIGP_INITIAL_CPU_RESET, 0, NULL); > sigp(1, SIGP_STORE_STATUS_AT_ADDRESS, (uintptr_t)status, NULL); > @@ -217,7 +215,7 @@ static void test_reset(void) > psw.addr = (unsigned long)test_func; > > report_prefix_push("cpu reset"); > - smp_cpu_setup(1, psw); > + smp_cpu_start(1, psw); I think this also fixes a memory leak in case the code did not call smp_cpu_destroy() inbetween (since smp_cpu_setup() allocates new memory for the low-core). So as far as I can see, this is a good idea: Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 10:30:51 -0500 Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > Let's stop and start instead of using setup to run a function on a > cpu. Looking at the code, we only support active == operating state and !active == stopped state anyway, right? > > Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> > --- > s390x/smp.c | 19 ++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
On 1/14/20 5:45 PM, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 14/01/2020 16.30, Janosch Frank wrote: >> Let's stop and start instead of using setup to run a function on a >> cpu. >> >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> >> --- >> s390x/smp.c | 19 ++++++++++++------- >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/s390x/smp.c b/s390x/smp.c >> index 4dee43e..767d167 100644 >> --- a/s390x/smp.c >> +++ b/s390x/smp.c >> @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ static void test_start(void) >> psw.mask = extract_psw_mask(); >> psw.addr = (unsigned long)test_func; >> >> - smp_cpu_setup(1, psw); >> + smp_cpu_start(1, psw); >> wait_for_flag(); >> report(1, "start"); >> } >> @@ -131,9 +131,8 @@ static void test_ecall(void) >> >> report_prefix_push("ecall"); >> testflag = 0; >> - smp_cpu_destroy(1); >> >> - smp_cpu_setup(1, psw); >> + smp_cpu_start(1, psw); >> wait_for_flag(); >> testflag = 0; >> sigp(1, SIGP_EXTERNAL_CALL, 0, NULL); >> @@ -166,9 +165,8 @@ static void test_emcall(void) >> >> report_prefix_push("emcall"); >> testflag = 0; >> - smp_cpu_destroy(1); >> >> - smp_cpu_setup(1, psw); >> + smp_cpu_start(1, psw); >> wait_for_flag(); >> testflag = 0; >> sigp(1, SIGP_EMERGENCY_SIGNAL, 0, NULL); >> @@ -186,7 +184,7 @@ static void test_reset_initial(void) >> psw.addr = (unsigned long)test_func; >> >> report_prefix_push("reset initial"); >> - smp_cpu_setup(1, psw); >> + smp_cpu_start(1, psw); >> >> sigp_retry(1, SIGP_INITIAL_CPU_RESET, 0, NULL); >> sigp(1, SIGP_STORE_STATUS_AT_ADDRESS, (uintptr_t)status, NULL); >> @@ -217,7 +215,7 @@ static void test_reset(void) >> psw.addr = (unsigned long)test_func; >> >> report_prefix_push("cpu reset"); >> - smp_cpu_setup(1, psw); >> + smp_cpu_start(1, psw); > > I think this also fixes a memory leak in case the code did not call > smp_cpu_destroy() inbetween (since smp_cpu_setup() allocates new memory > for the low-core). So as far as I can see, this is a good idea: Well, if the cpu is active, we should just return in the setup function. But I have another patch in the queue which cleans up lowcore allocation. > > Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >
On 1/14/20 6:44 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 10:30:51 -0500 > Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > >> Let's stop and start instead of using setup to run a function on a >> cpu. > > Looking at the code, we only support active == operating state and > !active == stopped state anyway, right? Yes, although I think it might make sense to go over the active tracking in the future and rather make it a setup tracking. We can always ask via sigp run if the cpu is running. More stuff to add to the todo... > >> >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> >> --- >> s390x/smp.c | 19 ++++++++++++------- >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> >
diff --git a/s390x/smp.c b/s390x/smp.c index 4dee43e..767d167 100644 --- a/s390x/smp.c +++ b/s390x/smp.c @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ static void test_start(void) psw.mask = extract_psw_mask(); psw.addr = (unsigned long)test_func; - smp_cpu_setup(1, psw); + smp_cpu_start(1, psw); wait_for_flag(); report(1, "start"); } @@ -131,9 +131,8 @@ static void test_ecall(void) report_prefix_push("ecall"); testflag = 0; - smp_cpu_destroy(1); - smp_cpu_setup(1, psw); + smp_cpu_start(1, psw); wait_for_flag(); testflag = 0; sigp(1, SIGP_EXTERNAL_CALL, 0, NULL); @@ -166,9 +165,8 @@ static void test_emcall(void) report_prefix_push("emcall"); testflag = 0; - smp_cpu_destroy(1); - smp_cpu_setup(1, psw); + smp_cpu_start(1, psw); wait_for_flag(); testflag = 0; sigp(1, SIGP_EMERGENCY_SIGNAL, 0, NULL); @@ -186,7 +184,7 @@ static void test_reset_initial(void) psw.addr = (unsigned long)test_func; report_prefix_push("reset initial"); - smp_cpu_setup(1, psw); + smp_cpu_start(1, psw); sigp_retry(1, SIGP_INITIAL_CPU_RESET, 0, NULL); sigp(1, SIGP_STORE_STATUS_AT_ADDRESS, (uintptr_t)status, NULL); @@ -217,7 +215,7 @@ static void test_reset(void) psw.addr = (unsigned long)test_func; report_prefix_push("cpu reset"); - smp_cpu_setup(1, psw); + smp_cpu_start(1, psw); sigp_retry(1, SIGP_CPU_RESET, 0, NULL); report(smp_cpu_stopped(1), "cpu stopped"); @@ -226,6 +224,7 @@ static void test_reset(void) int main(void) { + struct psw psw; report_prefix_push("smp"); if (smp_query_num_cpus() == 1) { @@ -233,6 +232,12 @@ int main(void) goto done; } + /* Setting up the cpu to give it a stack and lowcore */ + psw.mask = extract_psw_mask(); + psw.addr = (unsigned long)cpu_loop; + smp_cpu_setup(1, psw); + smp_cpu_stop(1); + test_start(); test_stop(); test_stop_store_status();
Let's stop and start instead of using setup to run a function on a cpu. Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> --- s390x/smp.c | 19 ++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)