| Message ID | 1398455329-18136-4-git-send-email-ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi Ashwin, On 26 April 2014 01:18, Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org> wrote: > PSCIv0.2 adds a new function called AFFINITY_INFO, which > can be used to query if a specified CPU has actually gone > offline. Calling this function via cpu_kill ensures that > a CPU has quiesced after a call to cpu_die. > > Signed-off-by: Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org> > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> > --- > arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/uapi/linux/psci.h | 5 +++++ > 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c > index 570a48c..94e230c 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c > @@ -16,6 +16,8 @@ > #include <linux/init.h> > #include <linux/smp.h> > #include <linux/of.h> > +#include <linux/delay.h> > +#include <uapi/linux/psci.h> > > #include <asm/psci.h> > #include <asm/smp_plat.h> > @@ -66,6 +68,35 @@ void __ref psci_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu) > /* We should never return */ > panic("psci: cpu %d failed to shutdown\n", cpu); > } > + > +int __ref psci_cpu_kill(unsigned int cpu) > +{ > + int err, i; > + > + if (!psci_ops.affinity_info) > + return 1; > + /* > + * cpu_kill could race with cpu_die and we can > + * potentially end up declaring this cpu undead > + * while it is dying. So, try again a few times. > + */ > + > + for (i=0; i<10; i++) { > + err = psci_ops.affinity_info(cpu_logical_map(cpu), 0); > + > + if (err == PSCI_AFFINITY_INFO_RET_OFF) > + return 1; > + > + msleep(10); > + pr_info("Retrying again to check for CPU kill\n"); > + } > + > + pr_err("psci: Cannot kill CPU:%d, psci ret val: %d\n", > + cpu, err); > + /* Make platform_cpu_kill() fail. */ > + return 0; > +} > + > #endif > > bool __init psci_smp_available(void) > @@ -78,5 +109,6 @@ struct smp_operations __initdata psci_smp_ops = { > .smp_boot_secondary = psci_boot_secondary, > #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU > .cpu_die = psci_cpu_die, > + .cpu_kill = psci_cpu_kill, > #endif > }; > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/psci.h b/include/uapi/linux/psci.h > index a4136c3..857209b 100644 > --- a/include/uapi/linux/psci.h > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/psci.h > @@ -74,4 +74,9 @@ > #define PSCI_RET_NOT_PRESENT -7 > #define PSCI_RET_DISABLED -8 > > +/* Return values from the PSCI_ID_AFFINITY_INFO Function. */ > +#define PSCI_AFFINITY_INFO_RET_ON 0 > +#define PSCI_AFFINITY_INFO_RET_OFF 1 > +#define PSCI_AFFINITY_INFO_RET_ON_PENDING 2 I have already added this return values in v10 patchset for PSCI v0.2 emulation for KVM ARM/ARM64. (http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm-arm/msg09062.html) Please rebase your patch against that. > + > #endif /* _UAPI_LINUX_PSCI_H */ > -- > 1.8.3.2 > Regards, Anup
Hello, On 28 April 2014 02:18, Anup Patel <anup.patel@linaro.org> wrote: >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/psci.h >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/psci.h >> @@ -74,4 +74,9 @@ >> #define PSCI_RET_NOT_PRESENT -7 >> #define PSCI_RET_DISABLED -8 >> >> +/* Return values from the PSCI_ID_AFFINITY_INFO Function. */ >> +#define PSCI_AFFINITY_INFO_RET_ON 0 >> +#define PSCI_AFFINITY_INFO_RET_OFF 1 >> +#define PSCI_AFFINITY_INFO_RET_ON_PENDING 2 > > I have already added this return values in v10 patchset for PSCI v0.2 > emulation for KVM ARM/ARM64. > (http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm-arm/msg09062.html) > > Please rebase your patch against that. Ok will do. Whats the merge plan for these patches? We both share a common header but the code that uses it would seemingly go up via different trees. armv8 (Catalin) and KVM (Christoffer)? Cheers, Ashwin
On 28 April 2014 14:16, Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org> wrote: > Hello, > > On 28 April 2014 02:18, Anup Patel <anup.patel@linaro.org> wrote: >>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/psci.h >>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/psci.h >>> @@ -74,4 +74,9 @@ >>> #define PSCI_RET_NOT_PRESENT -7 >>> #define PSCI_RET_DISABLED -8 >>> >>> +/* Return values from the PSCI_ID_AFFINITY_INFO Function. */ >>> +#define PSCI_AFFINITY_INFO_RET_ON 0 >>> +#define PSCI_AFFINITY_INFO_RET_OFF 1 >>> +#define PSCI_AFFINITY_INFO_RET_ON_PENDING 2 >> >> I have already added this return values in v10 patchset for PSCI v0.2 >> emulation for KVM ARM/ARM64. >> (http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm-arm/msg09062.html) >> >> Please rebase your patch against that. > > > Ok will do. > > Whats the merge plan for these patches? We both share a common header > but the code that uses it would seemingly go up via different trees. > armv8 (Catalin) and KVM (Christoffer)? > Are they inter-dependent? I thought your patches depended on Anup's - not the other way around? If my assumption is correct, I think we can make sure to send the pull request to kvm/next early and ask Catalin to pull in kvm/next before pulling your changes. I'm cc'ing both Catalin and Paolo here for their advice. Thanks, -Christoffer
On 28 April 2014 08:23, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> Whats the merge plan for these patches? We both share a common header >> but the code that uses it would seemingly go up via different trees. >> armv8 (Catalin) and KVM (Christoffer)? >> > Are they inter-dependent? I thought your patches depended on Anup's - > not the other way around? > > If my assumption is correct, I think we can make sure to send the pull > request to kvm/next early and ask Catalin to pull in kvm/next before > pulling your changes. Right. My patches depend on the header (uapi/psci.h) introduced by Anups patchset. Cheers, Ashwin
Il 28/04/2014 14:23, Christoffer Dall ha scritto: > Are they inter-dependent? I thought your patches depended on Anup's - > not the other way around? > > If my assumption is correct, I think we can make sure to send the pull > request to kvm/next early and ask Catalin to pull in kvm/next before > pulling your changes. > > I'm cc'ing both Catalin and Paolo here for their advice. Is Anup's patchset already on a branch? If you send me a pointer to it I can look at that branch history and see what's best. Paolo
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 03:03:23PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 28/04/2014 14:23, Christoffer Dall ha scritto: > >Are they inter-dependent? I thought your patches depended on Anup's - > >not the other way around? > > > >If my assumption is correct, I think we can make sure to send the pull > >request to kvm/next early and ask Catalin to pull in kvm/next before > >pulling your changes. > > > >I'm cc'ing both Catalin and Paolo here for their advice. > > Is Anup's patchset already on a branch? If you send me a pointer to > it I can look at that branch history and see what's best. > I didn't merge it yet - need to make one final pass over it (likely later tonight). But this is the series: https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm/2014-April/009061.html I believe Ashwin's patch set depends only on "ARM/ARM64: KVM: Add common header for PSCI related defines". Thanks, -Christoffer
Il 28/04/2014 15:06, Christoffer Dall ha scritto: >> > >> > Is Anup's patchset already on a branch? If you send me a pointer to >> > it I can look at that branch history and see what's best. >> > > I didn't merge it yet - need to make one final pass over it (likely > later tonight). > > But this is the series: > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm/2014-April/009061.html Even better. :) 1) Catalin can apply "Add common header for PSCI related defines", or Ashwin can resend his series with the patch at the beginning. Duplicate commits are fine, especially for seldom-modified files where they do not cause conflicts. 2) Send Anup's patchset as a pull request to both me and Catalin, relative to v3.16-rc1, both of us can apply it and Ashwin's series can be commit on top. Paolo
On 28 April 2014 15:48, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote: > Il 28/04/2014 15:06, Christoffer Dall ha scritto: > >>> > >>> > Is Anup's patchset already on a branch? If you send me a pointer to >>> > it I can look at that branch history and see what's best. >>> > >> >> I didn't merge it yet - need to make one final pass over it (likely >> later tonight). >> >> But this is the series: >> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm/2014-April/009061.html > > > Even better. :) > > 1) Catalin can apply "Add common header for PSCI related defines", or Ashwin > can resend his series with the patch at the beginning. Duplicate commits > are fine, especially for seldom-modified files where they do not cause > conflicts. > > 2) Send Anup's patchset as a pull request to both me and Catalin, relative > to v3.16-rc1, both of us can apply it and Ashwin's series can be commit on > top. > (2) sounds cleaner to me, we'll do that thanks, -Christoffer
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c index 570a48c..94e230c 100644 --- a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c @@ -16,6 +16,8 @@ #include <linux/init.h> #include <linux/smp.h> #include <linux/of.h> +#include <linux/delay.h> +#include <uapi/linux/psci.h> #include <asm/psci.h> #include <asm/smp_plat.h> @@ -66,6 +68,35 @@ void __ref psci_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu) /* We should never return */ panic("psci: cpu %d failed to shutdown\n", cpu); } + +int __ref psci_cpu_kill(unsigned int cpu) +{ + int err, i; + + if (!psci_ops.affinity_info) + return 1; + /* + * cpu_kill could race with cpu_die and we can + * potentially end up declaring this cpu undead + * while it is dying. So, try again a few times. + */ + + for (i=0; i<10; i++) { + err = psci_ops.affinity_info(cpu_logical_map(cpu), 0); + + if (err == PSCI_AFFINITY_INFO_RET_OFF) + return 1; + + msleep(10); + pr_info("Retrying again to check for CPU kill\n"); + } + + pr_err("psci: Cannot kill CPU:%d, psci ret val: %d\n", + cpu, err); + /* Make platform_cpu_kill() fail. */ + return 0; +} + #endif bool __init psci_smp_available(void) @@ -78,5 +109,6 @@ struct smp_operations __initdata psci_smp_ops = { .smp_boot_secondary = psci_boot_secondary, #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU .cpu_die = psci_cpu_die, + .cpu_kill = psci_cpu_kill, #endif }; diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/psci.h b/include/uapi/linux/psci.h index a4136c3..857209b 100644 --- a/include/uapi/linux/psci.h +++ b/include/uapi/linux/psci.h @@ -74,4 +74,9 @@ #define PSCI_RET_NOT_PRESENT -7 #define PSCI_RET_DISABLED -8 +/* Return values from the PSCI_ID_AFFINITY_INFO Function. */ +#define PSCI_AFFINITY_INFO_RET_ON 0 +#define PSCI_AFFINITY_INFO_RET_OFF 1 +#define PSCI_AFFINITY_INFO_RET_ON_PENDING 2 + #endif /* _UAPI_LINUX_PSCI_H */