Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 9 Apr 2019 18:13:07 -0700
From:   Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@intel.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Clemens Ladisch <clemens@ladisch.de>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/14] x86/watchdog/hardlockup: Add an HPET-based
 hardlockup detector
Message-ID: <20190410011307.GB10062@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com>
References: <1551283518-18922-1-git-send-email-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
 <1551283518-18922-12-git-send-email-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1903262029310.1789@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20190409105946.GR4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190409105946.GR4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 12:59:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 09:49:13PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > So way you should handle this is:
> > 
> > 	cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, hld_data->cpu_monitored_mask);
> > 
> > 	if (!hld_data->enabled_cpus++) {
> > 		hld_data->handling_cpu = cpu;
> > 		kick_timer();
> > 		enable_timer();
> > 	}
> > 
> > The cpu mask starts off empty and each CPU sets itself when the function is
> > invoked on it.
> > 
> > data->enabled_cpus keeps track of the enabled cpus so you avoid
> > reconfiguration just because a different cpu comes online. And it's
> > required for disable as well.
> > 
> > > +void hardlockup_detector_hpet_disable(void)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct cpumask *allowed = watchdog_get_allowed_cpumask();
> > > +
> > > +	if (!hld_data)
> > > +		return;
> > > +
> > > +	/* Only disable the timer if there are no more CPUs to monitor. */
> > > +	if (!cpumask_weight(allowed))
> > > +		disable_timer(hld_data);
> > 
> > Again this should be:
> > 
> > 	cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, hld_data->cpu_monitored_mask);
> > 	hld_data->enabled_cpus--;
> > 
> > 	if (hld_data->handling_cpu != cpu)
> > 		return;
> > 
> > 	disable_timer();
> > 	if (hld_data->enabled_cpus)
> > 		return;
> 
> 	if (!hld_data->enabled_cpus)
> 		return;
> 
> > 
> > 	hld_data->handling_cpu = cpumask_first(hld_data->cpu_monitored_mask);
> > 	enable_timer();
> 
> That said; you can do the above without ->enabled_cpus, by using
> ->handling_cpu == nr_cpu_ids to indicate 'empty'. But I'm not at all
> sure that is worth the effort, it results in less obious code.

I agree. It is probably clearer to check for !hld_data->enabled_cpus as
it clearly indicates what happens if there are no more CPUs to monitor.

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo