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: <20220120090918.2646626-1-atishp@rivosinc.com> <20220120090918.2646626-7-atishp@rivosinc.com>
 <1AA3005C-E9C8-4E4B-900D-DD48B37CEA41@jrtc27.com> <CAOnJCUKJmHv2Rs3=FR3LjiZqvM5uxcVeZ3D5xRSbEeDFCeS9=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMuHMdW+ZO0=Qc8NCWujZUq=L-LZJpcd7oZo4MxRFYMmcURXVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMuHMdXq7OQJL6H7=JRnDTR6p+AD0o2Ctjn806XZQZ9PYjvepg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOnJCU+AVS5Js4ZXmUubTqwU5Ye-9_z8onEE1mwhvCsOXchFBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMuHMdWsX-Pg3B1=KRf9hz1JrPAbydBrANTXg4q5CFJCqHJAoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOnJCU+U0xmw-_yTEUo9ZXO5pvoJ6VCGu+jjU-Sa2MnhcAha6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMuHMdXLjjgD7j_5cm8qdL63m1SoB90O9j7YMYYrpXaH79hwJQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdXLjjgD7j_5cm8qdL63m1SoB90O9j7YMYYrpXaH79hwJQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:55:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdWgReJmBsZtY7mamnD7FkxaVX0uV2NgJNO1cFcUf8u3HA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] RISC-V: Do not use cpumask data structure for
 hartid bitmap
To:     Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>
Cc:     Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@jrtc27.com>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@wdc.com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 9:39 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 1:13 AM Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 12:48 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> >> What about shifting hmask and adjusting hbase if a hartid is
> >> lower than the current hbase?
> >
> > That will probably work for current systems but it will fail when we have hartid > 64.
> > The below logic as it assumes that the hartids are in order. We can have a situation
> > where a two consecutive cpuid belong to hartids that require two invocations of sbi call
> > because the number of harts exceeds BITS_PER_LONG.
>
> If the number of harts exceeds BITS_PER_LONG, you always need multiple
> calls, right?
>
> I think the below (gmail-whitespace-damaged diff) should work:
>
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c
> @@ -249,7 +249,7 @@ static void __sbi_set_timer_v02(uint64_t stime_value)
>
>  static int __sbi_send_ipi_v02(const struct cpumask *cpu_mask)
>  {
> -       unsigned long hartid, cpuid, hmask = 0, hbase = 0;
> +       unsigned long hartid, cpuid, hmask = 0, hbase = 0, htop = 0;
>         struct sbiret ret = {0};
>         int result;
>
> @@ -258,16 +258,27 @@ static int __sbi_send_ipi_v02(const struct
> cpumask *cpu_mask)
>
>         for_each_cpu(cpuid, cpu_mask) {
>                 hartid = cpuid_to_hartid_map(cpuid);
> -               if (hmask &&
> -                   (hartid < hbase || hartid >= hbase + BITS_PER_LONG)) {

Oops, I actually sent the diff against the simpler solution below,
not against the current code, but I guess you get the idea.
I can send a proper patch when agreed.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds