Received: by 2002:a25:7ec1:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id z184csp1123080ybc; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 15:03:02 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxAWRXsRU6g0k7/toEKGDp6OT1QPeX9aIm8HNp3Rp9ITf7XsuQp+R1OAhEejdG/AGRkOrK9 X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:8548:: with SMTP id h8mr298030ejy.290.1574204581901; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 15:03:01 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1574204581; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=gp5fQb0T9rpnQ14KjmZQB0c1ppdfkvJ14QXBhDrKoVgMFj7kT7DH6pysPPW2GWR9Kw foBTx+sJ0UiWj+H8OxVrj4nIGoNvvbAfEJSVlLjGhiQrquUMQx43CTI9Ee4I5Vu9T6bY ECu/foAOnTOEJg0I0URraOb8ygeWI4CoL0k6SrhpvoqVWLoLFBh4gfOojffaSeSB7Qzj Z4BUhDDDjxH0D1L1ezuoBiWNbYaVD9tqeAqAE3UccRF0MPHDK5fpW4LScVr4sLfbBSd0 13pZlQbkznxwBXqzQqA6CpgbAUu7NjEXs7CZnNvgdwPnfLGsiY7mGdQRHrcRA0HHzhhu RZRg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:user-agent:references :message-id:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=I2Nvr4MQdTuZYskr+y/LW5j57ksWxqPh0L2MvHA5bV0=; b=EehHVrXm2W5vn6C0U/ixcMIDGbmYI2/Vrp6syDuWQ8GNz9Y0poStzAo2TGf7k3dqY3 GtHfZjg8ix0Y/9uPTX+0sv6UvuLVgLhpA5jDppabwD59auCyksJgAr9MLtBmU+0Kodr9 yl4u0Rju1MoOvzAA7PS8NEKftHSEF24ovVHdGZNXW9R2RGfO/ddG3He9SKzXomhWOnXZ W57O6Op8qvsyWQhF15b7yKqJQefa/UVR2q+7BZ+k11LFamaAk2VcGtybSV9/KsoKK34x uAusu4460XehKE5A1UOBkKw0Bs+Ju8t4Pbg63LhKv3pU+CU/9riYY2FzB3KzyZduaiF7 hjRA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id j7si14876055ejf.155.2019.11.19.15.02.36; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 15:03:01 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727202AbfKSXBa (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:01:30 -0500 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:54881 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726025AbfKSXBa (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:01:30 -0500 Received: from p5b06da22.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([91.6.218.34] helo=nanos) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1iXCUo-0005ZH-PJ; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 00:01:18 +0100 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 00:01:17 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Qais Yousef 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) In-Reply-To: <20191119225100.gqiiiwoyt3yntdoj@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: References: <20191030153837.18107-1-qais.yousef@arm.com> <20191030153837.18107-2-qais.yousef@arm.com> <20191119225100.gqiiiwoyt3yntdoj@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.). Thanks, tglx