Re: [PATCH 4/7] thermal: intel: hfi: Handle CPU hotplug events

From: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
	Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
	Amit Kucheria <amitk@kernel.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
	Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] thermal: intel: hfi: Handle CPU hotplug events
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 15:43:07 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211202234307.GA334@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0iXBn1o9ZFzNaYU4ft=JcRfNv7AJ8Sq-9HbBJbp60LpWQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 02:32:42PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:22 PM Ricardo Neri
> <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 03:48:49PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 2:34 AM Ricardo Neri
> > > <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> [cut]
> 
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * intel_hfi_offline() - Disable HFI on @cpu
> > > > + * @cpu:       CPU in which the HFI will be disabled
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Remove @cpu from those covered by its HFI instance.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * On some processors, hardware remembers previous programming settings even
> > > > + * after being reprogrammed. Thus, keep HFI enabled even if all CPUs in the
> > > > + * die/package of @cpu are offline. See note in intel_hfi_online().
> > > > + */
> > > > +void intel_hfi_offline(unsigned int cpu)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       struct cpumask *die_cpumask = topology_core_cpumask(cpu);
> > > > +       struct hfi_cpu_info *info = &per_cpu(hfi_cpu_info, cpu);
> > > > +       struct hfi_instance *hfi_instance;
> > > > +
> > > > +       if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_INTEL_HFI))
> > > > +               return;
> > > > +
> > > > +       hfi_instance = info->hfi_instance;
> > > > +       if (!hfi_instance)
> > > > +               return;
> > > > +
> > > > +       if (!hfi_instance->initialized)
> > > > +               return;
> > > > +
> > > > +       mutex_lock(&hfi_lock);
> > > > +
> > > > +       /*
> > > > +        * We were using the core cpumask of @cpu to track CPUs in the same
> > > > +        * die/package. Now it is going offline and we need to find another
> > > > +        * CPU we can use.
> > > > +        */
> > > > +       if (die_cpumask == hfi_instance->cpus) {
> > > > +               int new_cpu;
> > > > +
> > > > +               new_cpu = cpumask_any_but(hfi_instance->cpus, cpu);
> > > > +               if (new_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
> > > > +                       /* All other CPUs in the package are offline. */
> > > > +                       hfi_instance->cpus = NULL;
> > > > +               else
> > > > +                       hfi_instance->cpus = topology_core_cpumask(new_cpu);
> > >
> > > Hmmm.  Is topology_core_cpumask() updated when CPUs go offline and online?
> >
> > Yes. A CPU going offline is cleared from its siblings' cpumask [1] and its own [2]
> > in remove_siblinginfo() via cpu_disable_common(). A CPU going online is set
> > in its siblings' cpumask and its own in set_cpu_sibling_map() [3].
> 
> OK, so it is necessary to ensure that intel_hfi_offline() will always
> run after remove_siblinginfo() so it sees the updated mask.  How do we
> ensure that?

I don't think that is possible. remove_siblinginfo() is called from
CPUHP_TEARDOWN_CPU, which always happens after CPUHP_AP_OFFLINE, if I
understand correctly.

I guess that I will need to use a local cpumask as other drivers do.

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo