Thread (42 messages) 42 messages, 6 authors, 2024-04-11

Re: [PATCH RFC v4 02/15] ACPI: processor: Register all CPUs from acpi_processor_get_info()

From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: 2024-02-15 19:22:41
Also in: kvmarm, linux-acpi, linux-arch, linux-doc, linux-pm, linux-riscv, lkml, loongarch

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 5:50 PM Russell King [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>

To allow ACPI to skip the call to arch_register_cpu() when the _STA
value indicates the CPU can't be brought online right now, move the
arch_register_cpu() call into acpi_processor_get_info().

Systems can still be booted with 'acpi=off', or not include an
ACPI description at all. For these, the CPUs continue to be
registered by cpu_dev_register_generic().

This moves the CPU register logic back to a subsys_initcall(),
while the memory nodes will have been registered earlier.

Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <redacted>
Tested-by: Miguel Luis <redacted>
Tested-by: Vishnu Pajjuri <redacted>
Tested-by: Jianyong Wu <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <redacted>
---
Changes since RFC v2:
 * Fixup comment in acpi_processor_get_info() (Gavin Shan)
 * Add comment in cpu_dev_register_generic() (Gavin Shan)
---
 drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c | 12 ++++++++++++
 drivers/base/cpu.c            |  6 +++++-
 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
index cf7c1cca69dd..a68c475cdea5 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
@@ -314,6 +314,18 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_info(struct acpi_device *device)
                        cpufreq_add_device("acpi-cpufreq");
        }

+       /*
+        * Register CPUs that are present. get_cpu_device() is used to skip
+        * duplicate CPU descriptions from firmware.
+        */
+       if (!invalid_logical_cpuid(pr->id) && cpu_present(pr->id) &&
+           !get_cpu_device(pr->id)) {
+               int ret = arch_register_cpu(pr->id);
+
+               if (ret)
+                       return ret;
+       }
+
        /*
         *  Extra Processor objects may be enumerated on MP systems with
         *  less than the max # of CPUs. They should be ignored _iff
This is interesting, because right below there is the following code:

    if (invalid_logical_cpuid(pr->id) || !cpu_present(pr->id)) {
        int ret = acpi_processor_hotadd_init(pr);

        if (ret)
            return ret;
    }

and acpi_processor_hotadd_init() essentially calls arch_register_cpu()
with some extra things around it (more about that below).

I do realize that acpi_processor_hotadd_init() is defined under
CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU, so for the sake of the argument let's
consider an architecture where CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU is set.

So why are the two conditionals that almost contradict each other both
needed?  It looks like the new code could be combined with
acpi_processor_hotadd_init() to do the right thing in all cases.

Now, acpi_processor_hotadd_init() does some extra things that look
like they should be done by the new code too.

1. It checks invalid_phys_cpuid() which appears to be a good idea to me.

2. It uses locking around arch_register_cpu() which doesn't seem
unreasonable either.

3. It calls acpi_map_cpu() and I'm not sure why this is not done by
the new code.

The only thing that can be dropped from it is the _STA check AFAICS,
because acpi_processor_add() won't even be called if the CPU is not
present (and not enabled after the first patch).

So why does the code not do 1 - 3 above?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/drivers/base/cpu.c b/drivers/base/cpu.c
index 47de0f140ba6..13d052bf13f4 100644
--- a/drivers/base/cpu.c
+++ b/drivers/base/cpu.c
@@ -553,7 +553,11 @@ static void __init cpu_dev_register_generic(void)
 {
        int i, ret;

-       if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES))
+       /*
+        * When ACPI is enabled, CPUs are registered via
+        * acpi_processor_get_info().
+        */
+       if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES) || !acpi_disabled)
                return;
Honestly, this looks like a quick hack to me and it absolutely
requires an ACK from the x86 maintainers to go anywhere.
        for_each_present_cpu(i) {
--
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help