This issue was fixed already by:
commit d66b16f5df4b ("arm64: Don't use disable_nonboot_cpus()")
commit dddf3578e0d4 ("ARM: Don't use disable_nonboot_cpus()")
The only caller of disable_nonboot_cpus() is x86, which is in a proper
suspend/resume path and due to the reverted patch lost its ability to
early abort due to a pending wakeup.
The fix that is being reverted is arguably a better one to backport to
stable trees. But it highlights the confusion about using
disable_nonboot_cpus() API.
This is a preparation to remove disable_nonboot_cpus() in favor of
freeze_secondary_cpus().
This reverts commit e98eac6ff1b45e4e73f2e6031b37c256ccb5d36b.
Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <[email protected]>
CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
CC: Len Brown <[email protected]>
CC: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
CC: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
CC: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected]
CC: Todd E Brandt <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
---
include/linux/cpu.h | 12 +++---------
kernel/cpu.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/cpu.h b/include/linux/cpu.h
index beaed2dc269e..9ead281157d3 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpu.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpu.h
@@ -144,18 +144,12 @@ static inline void get_online_cpus(void) { cpus_read_lock(); }
static inline void put_online_cpus(void) { cpus_read_unlock(); }
#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP_SMP
-int __freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary, bool suspend);
-static inline int freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary)
-{
- return __freeze_secondary_cpus(primary, true);
-}
-
+extern int freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary);
static inline int disable_nonboot_cpus(void)
{
- return __freeze_secondary_cpus(0, false);
+ return freeze_secondary_cpus(0);
}
-
-void enable_nonboot_cpus(void);
+extern void enable_nonboot_cpus(void);
static inline int suspend_disable_secondary_cpus(void)
{
diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
index 12ae636e9cb6..30848496cbc7 100644
--- a/kernel/cpu.c
+++ b/kernel/cpu.c
@@ -1327,7 +1327,7 @@ void bringup_nonboot_cpus(unsigned int setup_max_cpus)
#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP_SMP
static cpumask_var_t frozen_cpus;
-int __freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary, bool suspend)
+int freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary)
{
int cpu, error = 0;
@@ -1352,7 +1352,7 @@ int __freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary, bool suspend)
if (cpu == primary)
continue;
- if (suspend && pm_wakeup_pending()) {
+ if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
pr_info("Wakeup pending. Abort CPU freeze\n");
error = -EBUSY;
break;
--
2.17.1
The single user could have called freeze_secondary_cpus() directly.
Since this function was a source of confusion, remove it as it's
just a pointless wrapper.
Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <[email protected]>
CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
CC: Len Brown <[email protected]>
CC: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
CC: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
CC: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected]
CC: Todd E Brandt <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
---
Documentation/power/suspend-and-cpuhotplug.rst | 4 ++--
arch/x86/power/cpu.c | 2 +-
include/linux/cpu.h | 5 -----
kernel/cpu.c | 2 +-
4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/power/suspend-and-cpuhotplug.rst b/Documentation/power/suspend-and-cpuhotplug.rst
index 572d968c5375..79f7610a6f6f 100644
--- a/Documentation/power/suspend-and-cpuhotplug.rst
+++ b/Documentation/power/suspend-and-cpuhotplug.rst
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ More details follow::
|
|
v
- disable_nonboot_cpus()
+ freeze_secondary_cpus()
/* start */
|
v
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ More details follow::
Release cpu_add_remove_lock
|
v
- /* disable_nonboot_cpus() complete */
+ /* freeze_secondary_cpus() complete */
|
v
Do suspend
diff --git a/arch/x86/power/cpu.c b/arch/x86/power/cpu.c
index 915bb1639763..e0a9ad8829b0 100644
--- a/arch/x86/power/cpu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/power/cpu.c
@@ -307,7 +307,7 @@ int hibernate_resume_nonboot_cpu_disable(void)
if (ret)
return ret;
smp_ops.play_dead = resume_play_dead;
- ret = disable_nonboot_cpus();
+ ret = freeze_secondary_cpus(0);
smp_ops.play_dead = play_dead;
return ret;
}
diff --git a/include/linux/cpu.h b/include/linux/cpu.h
index 9ead281157d3..a00941c7828b 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpu.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpu.h
@@ -145,10 +145,6 @@ static inline void put_online_cpus(void) { cpus_read_unlock(); }
#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP_SMP
extern int freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary);
-static inline int disable_nonboot_cpus(void)
-{
- return freeze_secondary_cpus(0);
-}
extern void enable_nonboot_cpus(void);
static inline int suspend_disable_secondary_cpus(void)
@@ -166,7 +162,6 @@ static inline void suspend_enable_secondary_cpus(void)
}
#else /* !CONFIG_PM_SLEEP_SMP */
-static inline int disable_nonboot_cpus(void) { return 0; }
static inline void enable_nonboot_cpus(void) {}
static inline int suspend_disable_secondary_cpus(void) { return 0; }
static inline void suspend_enable_secondary_cpus(void) { }
diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
index 30848496cbc7..d6d2c829561e 100644
--- a/kernel/cpu.c
+++ b/kernel/cpu.c
@@ -1376,7 +1376,7 @@ int freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary)
/*
* Make sure the CPUs won't be enabled by someone else. We need to do
- * this even in case of failure as all disable_nonboot_cpus() users are
+ * this even in case of failure as all freeze_secondary_cpus() users are
* supposed to do enable_nonboot_cpus() on the failure path.
*/
cpu_hotplug_disabled++;
--
2.17.1
Now that disable_nonboot_cpus was removed in favour of
freeze_secondary_cpus(), rename enable_nonboot_cpus() to
thaw_secondary_cpus() to preserve the naming symmetry.
Done automatically via:
git grep -l enable_nonboot_cpus | xargs sed -i 's/enable_nonboot_cpus/thaw_secondary_cpus/g'
Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <[email protected]>
CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
CC: Len Brown <[email protected]>
CC: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
CC: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
CC: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected]
CC: Todd E Brandt <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
---
Documentation/power/suspend-and-cpuhotplug.rst | 2 +-
arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 4 ++--
include/linux/cpu.h | 6 +++---
include/linux/smp.h | 4 ++--
kernel/cpu.c | 12 ++++++------
.../pm-graph/config/custom-timeline-functions.cfg | 2 +-
tools/power/pm-graph/sleepgraph.py | 2 +-
7 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/power/suspend-and-cpuhotplug.rst b/Documentation/power/suspend-and-cpuhotplug.rst
index 79f7610a6f6f..ebedb6c75db9 100644
--- a/Documentation/power/suspend-and-cpuhotplug.rst
+++ b/Documentation/power/suspend-and-cpuhotplug.rst
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ More details follow::
Resuming back is likewise, with the counterparts being (in the order of
execution during resume):
-* enable_nonboot_cpus() which involves::
+* thaw_secondary_cpus() which involves::
| Acquire cpu_add_remove_lock
| Decrease cpu_hotplug_disabled, thereby enabling regular cpu hotplug
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
index 69881b2d446c..9c31685af55a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
@@ -1372,12 +1372,12 @@ void __init native_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus)
speculative_store_bypass_ht_init();
}
-void arch_enable_nonboot_cpus_begin(void)
+void arch_thaw_secondary_cpus_begin(void)
{
set_mtrr_aps_delayed_init();
}
-void arch_enable_nonboot_cpus_end(void)
+void arch_thaw_secondary_cpus_end(void)
{
mtrr_aps_init();
}
diff --git a/include/linux/cpu.h b/include/linux/cpu.h
index a00941c7828b..52692587f7fe 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpu.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpu.h
@@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static inline void put_online_cpus(void) { cpus_read_unlock(); }
#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP_SMP
extern int freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary);
-extern void enable_nonboot_cpus(void);
+extern void thaw_secondary_cpus(void);
static inline int suspend_disable_secondary_cpus(void)
{
@@ -158,11 +158,11 @@ static inline int suspend_disable_secondary_cpus(void)
}
static inline void suspend_enable_secondary_cpus(void)
{
- return enable_nonboot_cpus();
+ return thaw_secondary_cpus();
}
#else /* !CONFIG_PM_SLEEP_SMP */
-static inline void enable_nonboot_cpus(void) {}
+static inline void thaw_secondary_cpus(void) {}
static inline int suspend_disable_secondary_cpus(void) { return 0; }
static inline void suspend_enable_secondary_cpus(void) { }
#endif /* !CONFIG_PM_SLEEP_SMP */
diff --git a/include/linux/smp.h b/include/linux/smp.h
index cbc9162689d0..04019872c7bc 100644
--- a/include/linux/smp.h
+++ b/include/linux/smp.h
@@ -227,8 +227,8 @@ static inline int get_boot_cpu_id(void)
*/
extern void arch_disable_smp_support(void);
-extern void arch_enable_nonboot_cpus_begin(void);
-extern void arch_enable_nonboot_cpus_end(void);
+extern void arch_thaw_secondary_cpus_begin(void);
+extern void arch_thaw_secondary_cpus_end(void);
void smp_setup_processor_id(void);
diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
index d6d2c829561e..8d57c3cfe862 100644
--- a/kernel/cpu.c
+++ b/kernel/cpu.c
@@ -1377,7 +1377,7 @@ int freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary)
/*
* Make sure the CPUs won't be enabled by someone else. We need to do
* this even in case of failure as all freeze_secondary_cpus() users are
- * supposed to do enable_nonboot_cpus() on the failure path.
+ * supposed to do thaw_secondary_cpus() on the failure path.
*/
cpu_hotplug_disabled++;
@@ -1385,15 +1385,15 @@ int freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary)
return error;
}
-void __weak arch_enable_nonboot_cpus_begin(void)
+void __weak arch_thaw_secondary_cpus_begin(void)
{
}
-void __weak arch_enable_nonboot_cpus_end(void)
+void __weak arch_thaw_secondary_cpus_end(void)
{
}
-void enable_nonboot_cpus(void)
+void thaw_secondary_cpus(void)
{
int cpu, error;
@@ -1405,7 +1405,7 @@ void enable_nonboot_cpus(void)
pr_info("Enabling non-boot CPUs ...\n");
- arch_enable_nonboot_cpus_begin();
+ arch_thaw_secondary_cpus_begin();
for_each_cpu(cpu, frozen_cpus) {
trace_suspend_resume(TPS("CPU_ON"), cpu, true);
@@ -1418,7 +1418,7 @@ void enable_nonboot_cpus(void)
pr_warn("Error taking CPU%d up: %d\n", cpu, error);
}
- arch_enable_nonboot_cpus_end();
+ arch_thaw_secondary_cpus_end();
cpumask_clear(frozen_cpus);
out:
diff --git a/tools/power/pm-graph/config/custom-timeline-functions.cfg b/tools/power/pm-graph/config/custom-timeline-functions.cfg
index 4f80ad7d7275..962e5768681c 100644
--- a/tools/power/pm-graph/config/custom-timeline-functions.cfg
+++ b/tools/power/pm-graph/config/custom-timeline-functions.cfg
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ acpi_suspend_begin:
suspend_console:
acpi_pm_prepare:
syscore_suspend:
-arch_enable_nonboot_cpus_end:
+arch_thaw_secondary_cpus_end:
syscore_resume:
acpi_pm_finish:
resume_console:
diff --git a/tools/power/pm-graph/sleepgraph.py b/tools/power/pm-graph/sleepgraph.py
index f7d1c1f62f86..530a9f681410 100755
--- a/tools/power/pm-graph/sleepgraph.py
+++ b/tools/power/pm-graph/sleepgraph.py
@@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ class SystemValues:
'suspend_console': {},
'acpi_pm_prepare': {},
'syscore_suspend': {},
- 'arch_enable_nonboot_cpus_end': {},
+ 'arch_thaw_secondary_cpus_end': {},
'syscore_resume': {},
'acpi_pm_finish': {},
'resume_console': {},
--
2.17.1
On Thursday, April 9, 2020 1:27:40 PM CEST Qais Yousef wrote:
> This issue was fixed already by:
>
> commit d66b16f5df4b ("arm64: Don't use disable_nonboot_cpus()")
> commit dddf3578e0d4 ("ARM: Don't use disable_nonboot_cpus()")
>
> The only caller of disable_nonboot_cpus() is x86, which is in a proper
> suspend/resume path and due to the reverted patch lost its ability to
> early abort due to a pending wakeup.
>
> The fix that is being reverted is arguably a better one to backport to
> stable trees. But it highlights the confusion about using
> disable_nonboot_cpus() API.
>
> This is a preparation to remove disable_nonboot_cpus() in favor of
> freeze_secondary_cpus().
>
> This reverts commit e98eac6ff1b45e4e73f2e6031b37c256ccb5d36b.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <[email protected]>
> CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
> CC: Len Brown <[email protected]>
> CC: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
> CC: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
> CC: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
> CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
> CC: [email protected]
> CC: Todd E Brandt <[email protected]>
> CC: [email protected]
> CC: [email protected]
> ---
> include/linux/cpu.h | 12 +++---------
> kernel/cpu.c | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpu.h b/include/linux/cpu.h
> index beaed2dc269e..9ead281157d3 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cpu.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpu.h
> @@ -144,18 +144,12 @@ static inline void get_online_cpus(void) { cpus_read_lock(); }
> static inline void put_online_cpus(void) { cpus_read_unlock(); }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP_SMP
> -int __freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary, bool suspend);
> -static inline int freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary)
> -{
> - return __freeze_secondary_cpus(primary, true);
> -}
> -
> +extern int freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary);
> static inline int disable_nonboot_cpus(void)
> {
> - return __freeze_secondary_cpus(0, false);
> + return freeze_secondary_cpus(0);
> }
> -
> -void enable_nonboot_cpus(void);
> +extern void enable_nonboot_cpus(void);
>
> static inline int suspend_disable_secondary_cpus(void)
> {
> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> index 12ae636e9cb6..30848496cbc7 100644
> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> @@ -1327,7 +1327,7 @@ void bringup_nonboot_cpus(unsigned int setup_max_cpus)
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP_SMP
> static cpumask_var_t frozen_cpus;
>
> -int __freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary, bool suspend)
> +int freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary)
> {
> int cpu, error = 0;
>
> @@ -1352,7 +1352,7 @@ int __freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary, bool suspend)
> if (cpu == primary)
> continue;
>
> - if (suspend && pm_wakeup_pending()) {
> + if (pm_wakeup_pending()) {
> pr_info("Wakeup pending. Abort CPU freeze\n");
> error = -EBUSY;
> break;
>
I would do this the other way around:
1. Make x86 call freeze_secondary_cpus() directly, rename
enable_nonboot_cpus() and drop disable_nonboot_cpus().
2. Get rid of __freeze_secondary_cpus().
On 04/26/20 17:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I would do this the other way around:
>
> 1. Make x86 call freeze_secondary_cpus() directly, rename
> enable_nonboot_cpus() and drop disable_nonboot_cpus().
All of this in a single patch?
> 2. Get rid of __freeze_secondary_cpus().
I guess you're implying to drop the revert too and manually unroll it instead.
Could do.
Thanks
--
Qais Yousef
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:29 PM Qais Yousef <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 04/26/20 17:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I would do this the other way around:
> >
> > 1. Make x86 call freeze_secondary_cpus() directly, rename
> > enable_nonboot_cpus() and drop disable_nonboot_cpus().
>
> All of this in a single patch?
Well, why not?
Calling freeze_secondary_cpus() directly causes disable_nonboot_cpus()
to be unused (and so it can be dropped in the same patch) and it also
introduces a name mismatch between freeze_ and enable_, which IMO
needs to be addressed right away (also in the same patch).
> > 2. Get rid of __freeze_secondary_cpus().
>
> I guess you're implying to drop the revert too and manually unroll it instead.
IMO the revert is just an extra step with no real value, so why do it?
> Could do.
Thanks!
On 04/29/20 12:40, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:29 PM Qais Yousef <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On 04/26/20 17:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > I would do this the other way around:
> > >
> > > 1. Make x86 call freeze_secondary_cpus() directly, rename
> > > enable_nonboot_cpus() and drop disable_nonboot_cpus().
> >
> > All of this in a single patch?
>
> Well, why not?
I don't mind, was just clarifying. Usually it's requested to split patches :)
>
> Calling freeze_secondary_cpus() directly causes disable_nonboot_cpus()
> to be unused (and so it can be dropped in the same patch) and it also
> introduces a name mismatch between freeze_ and enable_, which IMO
> needs to be addressed right away (also in the same patch).
>
> > > 2. Get rid of __freeze_secondary_cpus().
> >
> > I guess you're implying to drop the revert too and manually unroll it instead.
>
> IMO the revert is just an extra step with no real value, so why do it?
Works for me. Will send v2 ASAP.
Thanks
--
Qais Yousef