From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13B901465AF; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:03:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713366239; cv=none; b=hvVh/8I0WGvvBUYiegT3GSC0M15xm3oisVQt0hCkSuUEZbAmLcMGyaM9x28HvQCGqzofnWHOYAGY7Pa93E+4WYkQjN+11a5r3kfmrO007e68OBe6Yf8ixAQcvr1Nmsw/PyFf9LmmaMUtjT3lGxpdBu0257xTe40unbRssIvvyhc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713366239; c=relaxed/simple; bh=pt7o95x34rcwc39W27zAEKxVJVWFD/jgEs0kzsvtBRM=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=VgaTG9EL6j8iE2wMCLRzvqVtyZcY8lklE6FJlKTnXX5RUelRzB8JiJpkp22UsKgSAmwbhdZu+xsQhC+oHmt9Iwq7Unr+oZcMiEW1Vpu+gGO5R9icPUG8oKKDYHr0hs9fWsgcyG8zZEpKi0yIRM/c0WzeOTaX5ppV2ezbf38A0l0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.231]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4VKPJH6PZbz6JBJf; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 23:01:51 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.163.240]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 071AD140B54; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 23:03:52 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrpeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.213) by lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 16:03:51 +0100 Received: from lhrpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.191.163.213]) by lhrpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.191.163.213]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.035; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 16:03:51 +0100 From: Salil Mehta To: Jonathan Cameron , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "loongarch@lists.linux.dev" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "kvmarm@lists.linux.dev" , "x86@kernel.org" , Russell King , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , "Miguel Luis" , James Morse , Jean-Philippe Brucker , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon CC: Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "Dave Hansen" , Linuxarm , "justin.he@arm.com" , "jianyong.wu@arm.com" Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 06/16] ACPI: processor: Register deferred CPUs from acpi_processor_get_info() Thread-Topic: [PATCH v6 06/16] ACPI: processor: Register deferred CPUs from acpi_processor_get_info() Thread-Index: AQHakMpDOTAceXbil06hMEPbVPFoS7Fsjtaw Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:03:51 +0000 Message-ID: <22ace9b108ee488eb017f5b3e8facb8d@huawei.com> References: <20240417131909.7925-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> <20240417131909.7925-7-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <20240417131909.7925-7-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 > From: Jonathan Cameron > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 2:19 PM > =20 > From: James Morse > =20 > The arm64 specific arch_register_cpu() call may defer CPU registration u= ntil > the ACPI interpreter is available and the _STA method can be evaluated. > =20 > 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. > =20 > For architectures that do not defer until the ACPI Processor driver load= s > (e.g. x86), for initially present CPUs there will already be a CPU devic= e. If > present do not try to register again. > =20 > Systems can still be booted with 'acpi=3Doff', or not include an ACPI > description at all as in these cases arch_register_cpu() will not have > deferred registration when first called. > =20 > 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 sho= uld be > no side effects of moving it back again for this specific case. > =20 > [PATCH 00/21] Initial cleanups for vCPU HP. > https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZVyz%2FVe5pPu8AWoA@shell.armlinux.org.uk/ > =20 > e.g. 5b95f94c3b9f ("x86/topology: Switch over to GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES") > =20 > Signed-off-by: James Morse > Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan > Tested-by: Miguel Luis > Tested-by: Vishnu Pajjuri > Tested-by: Jianyong Wu > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) > Co-developed-by: Jonathan Cameron > Signed-off-by: Joanthan Cameron > --- > 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. > =20 > 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(-) > =20 > 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)) { Logic is clear but it is ugly. We should turn them into macro or inline. Thanks Salil.