Thread (38 messages) flat view 38 messages, 9 authors, 2012-12-11
STALE4995d

[RFC PATCH 2/2] ARM: SMP support for mach-virt

From: Will Deacon <hidden>
Date: 2012-12-04 13:40:10

On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 01:33:26PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 12:40:47PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 09:55:35PM +0000, Rob Herring wrote:
quoted
Why is the pen is needed? It should only be needed for hotplug on
systems that can't reset their cores. I'd hope you could design good
virtual h/w.
It's not so much about designing good virtual h/w as it is avoiding tying
the platform to it. What we don't want is to mandate that in order to boot
this machine, you *must* implement an emulation of some virtual
power-controller or SMP booting device. If we go down that route, there's
less advantage from having the virtual platform in the first place.
There is actually a bigger problem here.  Let's say that you have a
quad SMP platform.  You've arranged for your kernel to boot and only
bring one of those cores online.

You then kexec() or reboot.  As far as the kernel is concerned, those
other two CPUs are not online and are not running any kernel code;
however in reality they could be sitting in this 'pen'.

The memory that these 'offline' CPUs is executing then gets overwritten,
and that's game over for those CPUs.
That's not strictly true. The device-tree passed to the kernel should have a
/memreserve/ entry for the SMP pen to avoid exactly this scenario. In real
hardware, this still sucks because you have spinning CPUs burning up power
but that's not such a problem with a virtual platform.
So, the 'pen' approach in the kernel is fragile, I'd much rather not
have it.  It was fine in the beginning for the initial ARM Ltd SMP
platforms but in this modern age it has no place in real platforms where
there is proper control of the secondary CPUs.
We could have an (optional) virtual device for booting secondary CPUs but I
think the pen should still be there as a default method. Otherwise, we're
forcing a component of the platform to be emulated unnecessarily (the CPU,
vGIC and timers all have hardware-assisted virtualisation and require no
emulation).

Will
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help