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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16D4CC432C0 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:21:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B362245C for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:21:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727359AbfKSXVg (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:21:36 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:59588 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726948AbfKSXVg (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:21:36 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 837301FB; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 15:21:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com (e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.195.21]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CE7F3F52E; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 15:21:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:21:31 +0000 From: Qais Yousef To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Steve Capper , Richard Fontana , James Morse , Mark Rutland , Josh Poimboeuf , Ingo Molnar , "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" , Nicholas Piggin , Daniel Lezcano , Jiri Kosina , Pavankumar Kondeti , Zhenzhong Duan , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] arm64: hibernate.c: create a new function to handle cpu_up(sleep_cpu) Message-ID: <20191119232130.kz4cmqlpmc4by7cj@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20191030153837.18107-1-qais.yousef@arm.com> <20191030153837.18107-2-qais.yousef@arm.com> <20191119225100.gqiiiwoyt3yntdoj@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/20/19 00:01, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 19 Nov 2019, Qais Yousef wrote: > > On 11/19/19 23:31, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Wed, 30 Oct 2019, Qais Yousef wrote: > > > > > > > > +int hibernation_bringup_sleep_cpu(unsigned int sleep_cpu) > > > > > > That function name is horrible. Aside of that I really have to ask how you > > > end up hibernating on an offline CPU? > > > > James Morse can probably explain better. > > > > But AFAIU we could sleep on any CPU, but on the next cold boot that CPU could > > become offline as a side effect of using maxcpus= for example. > > > > How about bringup_hibernate_cpu() as a name? I could add the above as an > > explanation of why we need this call too. > > > > It does seem to me that this is a generic problem that we might be able to > > handle generically, but I'm not sure how. > > Don't know about other architectures, but x86 does not have that issue as > we force hibernation on CPU0 for historical reasons (Broken BIOSes etc.). I'll avoid making this series bigger then. Thanks -- Qais Yousef