Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-145673-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240412143719.11398-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
 <20240412143719.11398-3-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> <CAJZ5v0izN5naWY7sTi16whds9ubXkLpgqV2gePQs869BoJTCDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240415164854.0000264f@Huawei.com> <CAJZ5v0hd+CNsnH9xY+UX0iy_AEaqUqJj4KdR=+yvtvy5FQEy5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0j6gMaHamrCvrF8s+SgC0QVtG+naXhA4Dwg0t1YJvh4Uw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240415175057.00002e11@Huawei.com> <20240415183454.000072f6@Huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240415183454.000072f6@Huawei.com>
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:41:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0huAAa5UpK4kqR-Uz4ALfY-wQ-gv7CC8C-kx9UDFvCgUw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/18] ACPI: processor: Set the ACPI_COMPANION for the
 struct cpu instance
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, linuxarm@huawei.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, 
	loongarch@lists.linux.dev, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, x86@kernel.org, 
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, Miguel Luis <miguel.luis@oracle.com>, 
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@huawei.com>, 
	Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, 
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, justin.he@arm.com, jianyong.wu@arm.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 7:35=E2=80=AFPM Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:50:57 +0100
> Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:19:17 +0200
> > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 6:16=E2=80=AFPM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@ker=
nel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 5:49=E2=80=AFPM Jonathan Cameron
> > > > <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 20:10:54 +0200
> > > > > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 4:38=E2=80=AFPM Jonathan Cameron
> > > > > > <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The arm64 specific arch_register_cpu() needs to access the _S=
TA
> > > > > > > method of the DSDT object so make it available by assigning t=
he
> > > > > > > appropriate handle to the struct cpu instance.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >  drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c | 3 +++
> > > > > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c b/drivers/acpi/acp=
i_processor.c
> > > > > > > index 7a0dd35d62c9..93e029403d05 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> > > > > > > @@ -235,6 +235,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_info(struct=
 acpi_device *device)
> > > > > > >         union acpi_object object =3D { 0 };
> > > > > > >         struct acpi_buffer buffer =3D { sizeof(union acpi_obj=
ect), &object };
> > > > > > >         struct acpi_processor *pr =3D acpi_driver_data(device=
);
> > > > > > > +       struct cpu *c;
> > > > > > >         int device_declaration =3D 0;
> > > > > > >         acpi_status status =3D AE_OK;
> > > > > > >         static int cpu0_initialized;
> > > > > > > @@ -314,6 +315,8 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_info(struct=
 acpi_device *device)
> > > > > > >                         cpufreq_add_device("acpi-cpufreq");
> > > > > > >         }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +       c =3D &per_cpu(cpu_devices, pr->id);
> > > > > > > +       ACPI_COMPANION_SET(&c->dev, device);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is also set for per_cpu(cpu_sys_devices, pr->id) in
> > > > > > acpi_processor_add(), via acpi_bind_one().
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Rafael,
> > > > >
> > > > > cpu_sys_devices gets filled with a pointer to this same structure=
.
> > > > > The contents gets set in register_cpu() so at this point
> > > > > it doesn't point anywhere.  As a side note register_cpu()
> > > > > memsets to zero the value I set it to in the code above which isn=
't
> > > > > great, particularly as I want to use this in post_eject for
> > > > > arm64.
> > > > >
> > > > > We could make a copy of the handle and put it back after
> > > > > the memset in register_cpu() but that is also ugly.
> > > > > It's the best I've come up with to make sure this is still set
> > > > > come remove time but is rather odd.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Moreover, there is some pr->id validation in acpi_processor_add=
(), so
> > > > > > it seems premature to use it here this way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think that ACPI_COMPANION_SET() should be called from here on
> > > > > > per_cpu(cpu_sys_devices, pr->id) after validating pr->id (so th=
e
> > > > > > pr->id validation should all be done here) and then NULL can be=
 passed
> > > > > > as acpi_dev to acpi_bind_one() in acpi_processor_add().  Then, =
there
> > > > > > will be one physical device corresponding to the processor ACPI=
 device
> > > > > > and no confusion.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm fairly sure this is pointing to the same device but agreed th=
is
> > > > > is a tiny bit confusing. However we can't use cpu_sys_devices at =
this point
> > > > > so I'm not immediately seeing a cleaner solution :(
> > > >
> > > > Well, OK.
> > > >
> > > > Please at least consider doing the pr->id validation checks before
> > > > setting the ACPI companion for &per_cpu(cpu_devices, pr->id).
> > > >
> > > > Also, acpi_bind_one() needs to be called on the "physical" devices
> > > > passed to ACPI_COMPANION_SET() (with NULL as the second argument) f=
or
> > > > the reference counting and physical device lookup to work.
> > > >
> > > > Please also note that acpi_primary_dev_companion() should return
> > > > per_cpu(cpu_sys_devices, pr->id) for the processor ACPI device, whi=
ch
> > > > depends on the order of acpi_bind_one() calls involving the same AC=
PI
> > > > device.
> > >
> > > Of course, if the value set by ACPI_COMPANION_SET() is cleared
> > > subsequently, the above is not needed, but then using
> > > ACPI_COMPANION_SET() is questionable overall.
> >
> > Agreed + smoothing over that by stashing and putting it back doesn't
> > work because there is an additional call to acpi_bind_one() inbetween
> > here and the one you reference.
> >
> > The arch_register_cpu() calls end up calling register_cpu() /
> > device_register() / acpi_device_notify() / acpi_bind_one()
> >
> > With current code that fails (silently)

And that's why there is an explicit acpi_bind_one() invocation in
acpi_processor_add().

> > If I make sure the handle is set before register_cpu() then it
> > succeeds, but we end up with duplicate sysfs files etc because we
> > bind twice.

Right, I should have recalled that earlier.

> > I think the only way around this is larger reorganization of the
> > CPU hotplug code to pull the arch_register_cpu() call to where
> > the acpi_bind_one() call is.  However that changes a lot more than I'd =
like
> > (and I don't have it working yet).

I see.

> > Alternatively find somewhere else to stash the handle, or just add it a=
s
> > a parameter to arch_register_cpu(). Right now this feels the easier
> > path to me. arch_register_cpu(int cpu, acpi_handle handle)
> >
> > Would that be a path you'd consider?
>
> Another option would be to do the per_cpu(processors, pr->id) =3D pr
> a few lines earlier than currently and access that directly from the
> arch_register_cpu() call.  Similarly remove that reference a bit later an=
d
> use it in arch_unregister_cpu().
>
> This seems like the simplest solution, but I may be missing something.

This should work AFAICS, but I'd move the entire piece of code between
BUG_ON() and setting per_cpu(processors, pr->id) inclusive:

    BUG_ON(pr->id >=3D nr_cpu_ids);

    /*
     * Buggy BIOS check.
     * ACPI id of processors can be reported wrongly by the BIOS.
     * Don't trust it blindly
     */
    if (per_cpu(processor_device_array, pr->id) !=3D NULL &&
        per_cpu(processor_device_array, pr->id) !=3D device) {
        dev_warn(&device->dev,
            "BIOS reported wrong ACPI id %d for the processor\n",
            pr->id);
        /* Give up, but do not abort the namespace scan. */
        goto err;
    }
    /*
     * processor_device_array is not cleared on errors to allow buggy BIOS
     * checks.
     */
    per_cpu(processor_device_array, pr->id) =3D device;
    per_cpu(processors, pr->id) =3D pr;

into acpi_processor_get_info(), right after the point where pr->id is set.