From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S968691AbdD0Mbd (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 27 Apr 2017 08:31:33 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:37020 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S965424AbdD0Mb0 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 27 Apr 2017 08:31:26 -0400
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:30:57 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        will.deacon@arm.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [patch V2 00/24] cpu/hotplug: Convert get_online_cpus() to a
 percpu_rwsem
Message-ID: <20170427123056.GD31337@leverpostej>
References: <20170418170442.665445272@linutronix.de>
 <20170425161037.GA27156@leverpostej>
 <20170425172838.mr3kyccsdteyjso5@linutronix.de>
 <20170426085958.GC27156@leverpostej>
 <bad40d9a-2c81-5a6c-2c12-3bf7094549de@arm.com>
 <20170426103236.GI27156@leverpostej>
 <20170427082719.3wyru4bk67kdmflb@linutronix.de>
 <20170427095744.GB31337@leverpostej>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1704271200420.4607@nanos>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1704271200420.4607@nanos>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 12:01:57PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017, Mark Rutland wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:27:20AM +0200, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
> > > On 2017-04-26 11:32:36 [+0100], Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > > So we could end up calling static_branch_enable_cpuslocked()
> > > > > without actually holding the lock. Should we do a cpu_hotplug_begin/done in
> > > > > setup_cpu_feature_capabilities ? I agree it doesn't look that nice. Thoughts ?
> > > > 
> > > > I agree that's hideous, but it looks like the only choice given the
> > > > hotplug rwsem cahnges. :/
> > > 
> > > would work for you to provide a locked and unlocked version?
> > 
> > Maybe. Today we have:
> > 
> > // rwsem unlocked
> > start_kernel()
> > ->smp_prepare_boot_cpu()
> > -->update_cpu_errata_workarounds()
> > --->update_cpu_capabilities()
> > 
> > // rwsem locked (by other CPU)
> > secondary_start_kernel()
> > ->check_local_cpu_capabilities()
> > -->update_cpu_errata_workarounds()
> > --->update_cpu_capabilities() 
> > 
> > With the common chain:
> > 
> > update_cpu_capabilities()
> > ->cpus_set_cap()
> > -->static_branch_enable()
> > 
> > ... so we could add a update_cpu_capabilities{,_cpuslocked}(), and say
> > that cpus_set_cap() expects the hotplug rswem to be locked, as per the
> > below diff.
> 
> You just can take the rwsen in smp_prepare_boot_cpu(), so you don't need
> that conditional thingy at all. Hmm?

True.

Given it's a bit further up the callchain, it's probably worth a
comment, but it will work.

I'll spin a v3 to that effect shortly.

Thanks,
Mark.