| Message ID | 20230508185218.013044883@linutronix.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Handled Elsewhere |
| Headers | show |
| Series | cpu/hotplug, x86: Reworked parallel CPU bringup | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| conchuod/cover_letter | success | Series has a cover letter |
| conchuod/tree_selection | success | Guessed tree name to be for-next at HEAD ac9a78681b92 |
| conchuod/fixes_present | success | Fixes tag not required for -next series |
| conchuod/maintainers_pattern | success | MAINTAINERS pattern errors before the patch: 6 and now 6 |
| conchuod/verify_signedoff | success | Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer |
| conchuod/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| conchuod/build_rv64_clang_allmodconfig | success | Errors and warnings before: 8 this patch: 8 |
| conchuod/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| conchuod/build_rv64_gcc_allmodconfig | success | Errors and warnings before: 9 this patch: 9 |
| conchuod/build_rv32_defconfig | success | Build OK |
| conchuod/dtb_warn_rv64 | success | Errors and warnings before: 3 this patch: 3 |
| conchuod/header_inline | success | No static functions without inline keyword in header files |
| conchuod/checkpatch | success | total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 51 lines checked |
| conchuod/source_inline | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| conchuod/build_rv64_nommu_k210_defconfig | success | Build OK |
| conchuod/verify_fixes | success | No Fixes tag |
| conchuod/build_rv64_nommu_virt_defconfig | success | Build OK |
On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 09:43:49PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > > There is no harm to hold sparse_irq lock until the upcoming CPU completes > in cpuhp_online_idle(). This allows to remove cpu_online() synchronization > from architecture code. Uuuuuhh.. damn. Can you at the very least ammend the comment near irq_lock_sparse() to mention these extra duties?
On Tue, May 09 2023 at 13:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 09:43:49PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> >> >> There is no harm to hold sparse_irq lock until the upcoming CPU completes >> in cpuhp_online_idle(). This allows to remove cpu_online() synchronization >> from architecture code. > > Uuuuuhh.. damn. Can you at the very least ammend the comment near > irq_lock_sparse() to mention these extra duties? Will do.
--- a/kernel/cpu.c +++ b/kernel/cpu.c @@ -558,7 +558,7 @@ static int cpuhp_kick_ap(int cpu, struct return ret; } -static int bringup_wait_for_ap(unsigned int cpu) +static int bringup_wait_for_ap_online(unsigned int cpu) { struct cpuhp_cpu_state *st = per_cpu_ptr(&cpuhp_state, cpu); @@ -579,15 +579,12 @@ static int bringup_wait_for_ap(unsigned */ if (!cpu_smt_allowed(cpu)) return -ECANCELED; - - if (st->target <= CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_IDLE) - return 0; - - return cpuhp_kick_ap(cpu, st, st->target); + return 0; } static int bringup_cpu(unsigned int cpu) { + struct cpuhp_cpu_state *st = per_cpu_ptr(&cpuhp_state, cpu); struct task_struct *idle = idle_thread_get(cpu); int ret; @@ -606,10 +603,23 @@ static int bringup_cpu(unsigned int cpu) /* Arch-specific enabling code. */ ret = __cpu_up(cpu, idle); - irq_unlock_sparse(); if (ret) - return ret; - return bringup_wait_for_ap(cpu); + goto out_unlock; + + ret = bringup_wait_for_ap_online(cpu); + if (ret) + goto out_unlock; + + irq_unlock_sparse(); + + if (st->target <= CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_IDLE) + return 0; + + return cpuhp_kick_ap(cpu, st, st->target); + +out_unlock: + irq_unlock_sparse(); + return ret; } static int finish_cpu(unsigned int cpu)