Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210426023941.729334-1-sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <20210426023941.729334-4-sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <97e14cdc-ea98-18b8-0c89-db52440a7716@linux.intel.com> <CAJZ5v0gsqyXSr+Kw603333PZ=gnsBizNhyLAcu588OChEHT=AQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4fa40e7a-bcb2-db0f-8dc5-28728b14377d@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <4fa40e7a-bcb2-db0f-8dc5-28728b14377d@linux.intel.com>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 10 May 2021 19:23:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jMo9+ohUJ_=KHL_QwEo5GmAn_fMkng==Zmy-AJ=MPRog@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] x86/acpi, x86/boot: Add multiprocessor wake-up support
To:     "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Rafael J Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        Robert Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>,
        Erik Kaneda <erik.kaneda@intel.com>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:ACPI COMPONENT ARCHITECTURE (ACPICA)" <devel@acpica.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 7:10 PM Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/10/21 9:55 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I'm not sure how my comment regarding the fact that for a given CPU
> > this function is only usable once has been addressed.
> >
> > While it may not be a practical concern in the use case that you are
> > after (TDX), this is a generic mechanism and it needs to cover other
> > possible usage scenarios.
>
> For the same CPU, if we try to use mailbox again, firmware will not
> respond to it.

Well, theoretically, but what if it checks the mailbox every time for
all CPUs?  Or similar?

> So the command will timeout and return error.

If the firmware behaves as expected, but what if it doesn't?