Received: by 2002:a25:7ec1:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id z184csp1725014ybc; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:10:19 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxBDTT4khbqH3RH5Lez8amWaJ92TF9MQ2JnJ86gRY3TamQ2xyDlWv2ko+ykK60Bs/NYH2bn X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:2241:: with SMTP id 1mr4704319ejr.16.1574248219182; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:10:19 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1574248219; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=xACIcdRxTtASTy0vu4i5gyZyPl5BPMFn0zQOzV08EQASQ37+TT8qyCK/ctAIkNKJLj 6KFulda6hdjAh/VSZcurNyIZkSI+uMAXrSINxUqooFT6/vHu7jSscDhGA1rzaSWO8oBt doK1nSg8PMI1Eq5MInof2/h72o5LdLfPqtQMpEUiUEe5LhRYZJLCSRVaj5Ou/gWE22y2 Zb8xxmtCS/SYLaEEmzSpDRcK9W6/S0waZuDfLJdxROOAlRzXF22RxMRl5dFJWBYKpEEQ K4Zvv/8I1Tt+CKr8SInsE2IgbJ62N0XaCNyhwi0v8QqvOEyrhxP7lg8nLx+UsysRayR/ pUSQ== 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=aNPgokYJc372K8pXXkPbRNmNos8Zm8C+ZemhAHETPIM=; b=I3t586bJPf6lcH/bs+IkuwIKzjcQEaolw3zCvdTnMLLsgG/UH4vmWQxtu9K+b+pQlX Q4AbaH01FQ7kR32stD5zY7xuun2jlvp0PB248IA8tJaBpwY/9SJMDvk0hgYSMPVc4ZZa phyVhy/gJbPM1hEe6PDw+ZB8z31Ul9Q7FeZS39BHF4EzvvNNePHconVLCshQAwuFM87z +OZYGvGI6bh3kTFcQPyFdXef5al2ZPPS5++RoCeuOiQkuTNHqrDsqBMlrQff5Ljqs0t/ 46mEmVwehzDisBvqg8ROxq4bHPY6ff2fkL7S5KKgBT249GUZldmxhK5EBo6dghGfreo4 qqjg== 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 v11si15453679ejw.30.2019.11.20.03.09.41; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:10:19 -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 S1727972AbfKTIqS (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:46:18 -0500 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:55672 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726687AbfKTIqS (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:46:18 -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 1iXLcr-0002U3-Hh; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:46:13 +0100 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:46:12 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Qais Yousef cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Tony Luck , Fenghua Yu , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] ia64: Replace cpu_down with freeze_secondary_cpus In-Reply-To: <20191119231912.viwqgcyzttoo5eou@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: References: <20191030153837.18107-1-qais.yousef@arm.com> <20191030153837.18107-5-qais.yousef@arm.com> <20191119223234.ov323rcln4slj7br@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20191119231912.viwqgcyzttoo5eou@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 23:59, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Nov 2019, Qais Yousef wrote: > > > My plan was to simply make freeze_secondary_cpus() available and protected by > > > CONFIG_SMP only instead. > > > > > > Good plan? > > > > No. freeze_secondary_cpus() is really for hibernation. Look at the exit > > conditions there. > > Hmm do you mean the pm_wakeup_pending() abort? > > In arm64 we machine_shutdown() calls disable_nonboot_cpus(), which in turn > a wrapper around freeze_secondary_cpus() with 0 passed as an argument. > > IIUC this means arm64 could fail to offline all CPUs on machine_shutdown(), > correct? Looks like. Thanks, tglx