From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15463C433FE for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 16:52:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFDAC6113D for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 16:52:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234469AbhJSQzD (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Oct 2021 12:55:03 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-f170.google.com ([209.85.167.170]:44572 "EHLO mail-oi1-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229789AbhJSQzC (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Oct 2021 12:55:02 -0400 Received: by mail-oi1-f170.google.com with SMTP id y207so5852192oia.11; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 09:52:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fg0cCwJVHF76pIKAhe13PodfxRRyNCDHrc0ozMywzNw=; b=XJx3BHDQcRn5lHt5LTxkkaknh4Cv1c763/+wzPrzxcQkFAm2EL+1D8dRR8Pgo9EChA gxWU2VGe6Kg0Skq1M+lP+je25tuF2c7jH948Gpg4hx7RhkfSUr103wVWno9QLoaJg7yS rxkkgwWHz4b42+r0L3Rz3CmPwoiopfQm7uKZzRhHQdzoGKW2RjOlzD7m16SkIROJtYW9 OC1EkFZMbMwUKFkdqwT+nZp/4i+uHuLSOJz/RmTeXDAY1qEQfExHjupblRY3QzAp5JjI WacMU84GnCQyCA9tTRcsQrfE9qleSz/37fm34NENDB7VCIachB4QfMZonoOYgk2oCNID DGcQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531AG6YGZGdjwxYmdReflTb8Rfx7AipUlsVPdRIMVTJ5n4/CavVC Wb1M6Z5uBC4HqN7h7yQzcijLnCd5w3z81dt+REs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJydRVGsHDP0DrSDIexcFoZ34NnYWweKqZKndMhsMWMgocVz7pqdpzE7bjQh6NXPOYcv/36RcFZk9gDH6wKkjRM= X-Received: by 2002:aca:5c5:: with SMTP id 188mr5151432oif.154.1634662368345; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 09:52:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210926090605.3556134-1-ray.huang@amd.com> <20210926090605.3556134-4-ray.huang@amd.com> In-Reply-To: <20210926090605.3556134-4-ray.huang@amd.com> From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 18:52:37 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/21] ACPI: CPPC: Check online CPUs for determining _CPC is valid To: Huang Rui Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Viresh Kumar , Shuah Khan , Borislav Petkov , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Linux PM , Deepak Sharma , Alex Deucher , Mario Limonciello , Nathan Fontenot , Jinzhou Su , Xiaojian Du , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "the arch/x86 maintainers" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 11:06 AM Huang Rui wrote: > > From: Mario Limonciello > > As this is a static check, it should be based upon what is currently > present on the system. This makes probeing more deterministic. > > While local APIC flags field (lapic_flags) of cpu core in MADT table is > 0, then the cpu core won't be enabled. In this case, _CPC won't be found > in this core, and return back to _CPC invalid with walking through > possible cpus (include disable cpus). This is not expected, so switch to > check online CPUs instead. > > Reported-by: Jinzhou Su > Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello > Signed-off-by: Huang Rui > --- > drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c > index a4d4eebba1da..2efe2ba97d96 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c > @@ -411,7 +411,7 @@ bool acpi_cpc_valid(void) > struct cpc_desc *cpc_ptr; > int cpu; > > - for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) { Shouldn't this be for_each_present_cpu()? In case a CPU is present, but not online when cppc_cpufreq is loaded? > cpc_ptr = per_cpu(cpc_desc_ptr, cpu); > if (!cpc_ptr) > return false; > --