The core device API performs extra housekeeping bits that are missing
from directly calling cpu_up/down.
See commit a6717c01ddc2 ("powerpc/rtas: use device model APIs and
serialization during LPM") for an example description of what might go
wrong.
This also prepares to make cpu_up/down a private interface for anything
but the cpu subsystem.
Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <[email protected]>
CC: "James E.J. Bottomley" <[email protected]>
CC: Helge Deller <[email protected]>
CC: Richard Fontana <[email protected]>
CC: Armijn Hemel <[email protected]>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
---
Couldn't compile test this one.
I'm not confident that this is a correct patch to be honest. This __init
indicates we're booting the secondary cpus and that might be too early in the
process to use the core API..?
arch/parisc/kernel/processor.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/parisc/kernel/processor.c b/arch/parisc/kernel/processor.c
index 13f771f74ee3..4dde5fe78f0c 100644
--- a/arch/parisc/kernel/processor.c
+++ b/arch/parisc/kernel/processor.c
@@ -212,7 +212,9 @@ static int __init processor_probe(struct parisc_device *dev)
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
if (cpuid) {
set_cpu_present(cpuid, true);
- cpu_up(cpuid);
+ lock_device_hotplug();
+ device_online(get_cpu_device(cpuid));
+ unlock_device_hotplug();
}
#endif
--
2.17.1
On 10/30/19 15:38, Qais Yousef wrote:
> The core device API performs extra housekeeping bits that are missing
> from directly calling cpu_up/down.
>
> See commit a6717c01ddc2 ("powerpc/rtas: use device model APIs and
> serialization during LPM") for an example description of what might go
> wrong.
>
> This also prepares to make cpu_up/down a private interface for anything
> but the cpu subsystem.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <[email protected]>
> CC: "James E.J. Bottomley" <[email protected]>
> CC: Helge Deller <[email protected]>
> CC: Richard Fontana <[email protected]>
> CC: Armijn Hemel <[email protected]>
> CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
> CC: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> CC: [email protected]
> CC: [email protected]
> ---
>
> Couldn't compile test this one.
>
> I'm not confident that this is a correct patch to be honest. This __init
> indicates we're booting the secondary cpus and that might be too early in the
> process to use the core API..?
Helge, James
Do you have any comment on this? I have no means to test it and I'd
appreciate if you can spin it through one of your systems.
Thanks
--
Qais Yousef
>
>
> arch/parisc/kernel/processor.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/parisc/kernel/processor.c b/arch/parisc/kernel/processor.c
> index 13f771f74ee3..4dde5fe78f0c 100644
> --- a/arch/parisc/kernel/processor.c
> +++ b/arch/parisc/kernel/processor.c
> @@ -212,7 +212,9 @@ static int __init processor_probe(struct parisc_device *dev)
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> if (cpuid) {
> set_cpu_present(cpuid, true);
> - cpu_up(cpuid);
> + lock_device_hotplug();
> + device_online(get_cpu_device(cpuid));
> + unlock_device_hotplug();
> }
> #endif
>
> --
> 2.17.1
>
On 20.11.19 12:09, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 10/30/19 15:38, Qais Yousef wrote:
>> The core device API performs extra housekeeping bits that are missing
>> from directly calling cpu_up/down.
>>
>> See commit a6717c01ddc2 ("powerpc/rtas: use device model APIs and
>> serialization during LPM") for an example description of what might go
>> wrong.
>>
>> This also prepares to make cpu_up/down a private interface for anything
>> but the cpu subsystem.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <[email protected]>
>> CC: "James E.J. Bottomley" <[email protected]>
>> CC: Helge Deller <[email protected]>
>> CC: Richard Fontana <[email protected]>
>> CC: Armijn Hemel <[email protected]>
>> CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
>> CC: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
>> CC: [email protected]
>> CC: [email protected]
>> ---
>>
>> Couldn't compile test this one.
>>
>> I'm not confident that this is a correct patch to be honest. This __init
>> indicates we're booting the secondary cpus and that might be too early in the
>> process to use the core API..?
>
> Helge, James
>
> Do you have any comment on this? I have no means to test it and I'd
> appreciate if you can spin it through one of your systems.
I pulled your cpu-hp-cleanup branch from git://linux-arm.org/linux-qy
and compiled a 32- and a 64-bit parisc kernel.
I faced one compile warning:
linux-2.6/kernel/cpu.c: In function ‘hibernation_bringup_sleep_cpu’:
linux-2.6/kernel/cpu.c:1237:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type]
Other than that the 32- and 64-bit SMP kernel booted nicely.
You may add to the series:
Acked-by: Helge Deller <[email protected]> # parisc
Thanks,
Helge
>>
>> arch/parisc/kernel/processor.c | 4 +++-
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/parisc/kernel/processor.c b/arch/parisc/kernel/processor.c
>> index 13f771f74ee3..4dde5fe78f0c 100644
>> --- a/arch/parisc/kernel/processor.c
>> +++ b/arch/parisc/kernel/processor.c
>> @@ -212,7 +212,9 @@ static int __init processor_probe(struct parisc_device *dev)
>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> if (cpuid) {
>> set_cpu_present(cpuid, true);
>> - cpu_up(cpuid);
>> + lock_device_hotplug();
>> + device_online(get_cpu_device(cpuid));
>> + unlock_device_hotplug();
>> }
>> #endif
>>
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>
On 11/22/19 20:51, Helge Deller wrote:
> On 20.11.19 12:09, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > On 10/30/19 15:38, Qais Yousef wrote:
> >> The core device API performs extra housekeeping bits that are missing
> >> from directly calling cpu_up/down.
> >>
> >> See commit a6717c01ddc2 ("powerpc/rtas: use device model APIs and
> >> serialization during LPM") for an example description of what might go
> >> wrong.
> >>
> >> This also prepares to make cpu_up/down a private interface for anything
> >> but the cpu subsystem.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <[email protected]>
> >> CC: "James E.J. Bottomley" <[email protected]>
> >> CC: Helge Deller <[email protected]>
> >> CC: Richard Fontana <[email protected]>
> >> CC: Armijn Hemel <[email protected]>
> >> CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
> >> CC: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> >> CC: [email protected]
> >> CC: [email protected]
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Couldn't compile test this one.
> >>
> >> I'm not confident that this is a correct patch to be honest. This __init
> >> indicates we're booting the secondary cpus and that might be too early in the
> >> process to use the core API..?
> >
> > Helge, James
> >
> > Do you have any comment on this? I have no means to test it and I'd
> > appreciate if you can spin it through one of your systems.
>
> I pulled your cpu-hp-cleanup branch from git://linux-arm.org/linux-qy
> and compiled a 32- and a 64-bit parisc kernel.
>
> I faced one compile warning:
> linux-2.6/kernel/cpu.c: In function ‘hibernation_bringup_sleep_cpu’:
> linux-2.6/kernel/cpu.c:1237:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type]
>
> Other than that the 32- and 64-bit SMP kernel booted nicely.
> You may add to the series:
> Acked-by: Helge Deller <[email protected]> # parisc
Great! Thanks for testing it and reporting the warning.
Cheers
--
Qais Yousef
>
> Thanks,
> Helge
>
>
> >>
> >> arch/parisc/kernel/processor.c | 4 +++-
> >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/parisc/kernel/processor.c b/arch/parisc/kernel/processor.c
> >> index 13f771f74ee3..4dde5fe78f0c 100644
> >> --- a/arch/parisc/kernel/processor.c
> >> +++ b/arch/parisc/kernel/processor.c
> >> @@ -212,7 +212,9 @@ static int __init processor_probe(struct parisc_device *dev)
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> >> if (cpuid) {
> >> set_cpu_present(cpuid, true);
> >> - cpu_up(cpuid);
> >> + lock_device_hotplug();
> >> + device_online(get_cpu_device(cpuid));
> >> + unlock_device_hotplug();
> >> }
> >> #endif
> >>
> >> --
> >> 2.17.1
> >>
>