Message-ID: <1337343467.2626.25.camel@ThinkPad-T420>
Date:	Fri, 18 May 2012 20:17:47 +0800
From:	Li Zhong <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Deepthi Dharwar <deepthi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	PowerPC email list <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH powerpc] fix a lockdep complaint in start_secondary

On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 16:54 +0530, Deepthi Dharwar wrote:
> On 05/18/2012 08:24 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 15:52 +0530, Deepthi Dharwar wrote:
> >> On 05/17/2012 09:58 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 12:01 +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> >>>> This patch tries to fix following lockdep complaints:
> >>>
> >>>  .../...
> >>>
> >>>> pseries_notify_cpu_idle_add_cpu() actually does
> >>>> cpuidle_disable_device(), and then cpuidle_enable_device(), which
> >>>> releases and allocates the resources respectively. ( Also, all the data
> >>>> are cleared and reinitialized after this cycle). The problem here is:
> >>>> something like kzalloc(GFP_KERNEL), wait_for_completion() would have
> >>>> problems running here where irqs are still disabled. 
> >>
> >>
> >> This is true when the system is booting up.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> So yes, it looks definitely fishy. I don't have time to study cpuidle
> >>> today to check whether that's correct or not so I'm CCing Deepthi
> >>> Dharwar who did all that cpuidle work for pseries.
> >>>
> >>> Deepthi, can you check whether that patch is correct ?
> >>
> >>
> >> pseries_notify_cpu_idle_add_cpu() is essential to be called for
> >> hotplug event. So by removing this call completely wouldn't
> >> support cpus registering under cpuidle on hotplug and default idle is
> >> executed on those with do not give much powersavings. 
> > 
> > Maybe I missed that part.. would you please give some details how
> > removing this would prevent powersaving cpuidle being called after
> > hotplug? 
> > 
> > After rereading the codes, I think ppc_md.power_save() is the one you
> > mentioned that could give much powersavings? 
> > 
> > It is registered as pSeries_idle(), which calls cpuidle_idle_call(). 
> > It seems to me that it would still be called after hotplug. 
> > 
> > Or maybe I misunderstood your point? 
> 
> 
> If cpuidle_idle_call() fails, in case device is not present, off ,
> not initialized and not ready to use, default idle is called.
> Coming out of a hotplug event, it is good to cleanly exit out
> and reallocate all the resources when needed, rather than using the
> stale one to make sure this call succeeds always.
> 
> Default idle executed in pSeries_idle() :
> 		HMT_low();
>                 HMT_very_low();
> This would not have much powersavings.

>From my testing, cpuidle_idle_call didn't fail after hotplug, so it
didn't fall back to the default idling. I still don't see any big
problems if we don't reallocate the resources. 

> 
> CPUIDLE subsystem needs to be informed when a hot plug event occurs
> and not a good practice to mask this subsystem from this system wide
> event.

Ok, I agree that the CPUIDLE subsystem should be notified about the hot
plug events. Thank you. 

I think this would be included in your coming patch, and I could just
stop here, hehe

> 
> I agree that putting it in xics setup is not a good thing.
> Notifier would be a cleaner way of doing it.
> That way, duplication of resources allocated and released at boot
> time is not done.
> 		
> 
> > 
> >> Ideal way it to
> >> have a notifier in pseries backend driver for hotplug notification and
> >> then remove this function from here.
> >> I am currently working on this patch, will post it out soon.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> Actually, cpuidle_enable_device() is called for each possible cpu when
> >>>> the driver is registered. So I don't think the resources needed to be
> >>>> released and allocated each time cpu becomes online. Something like
> >>>> cpuidle_reset_device() would be enough to clear and reinitialize the
> >>>> data.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, after some studying of the data to be cleared, I think it's
> >>>> also reasonable to keep the previous data. For example: 
> >>>>
> >>>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu#/cpuidle/state#/usage 
> >>>>         the number of times this idle state has been entered
> >>>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu#/cpuidle/state#/time
> >>>>         the amount of time spent in this idle state
> >>>>
> >>>> So I think we could just remove the function call doing the
> >>>> disable/enable cycle:
> >>>>
> >>>> Please correct me if I missed anything.
> >>
> >>
> >> If removed, this would not handle cpu hotplug events for cpuidle.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Reported-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Li Zhong <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>>> Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/smp.c |    1 -
> >>>>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/smp.c
> >>>> b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/smp.c
> >>>> index e16bb8d..71706bc 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/smp.c
> >>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/smp.c
> >>>> @@ -147,7 +147,6 @@ static void __devinit smp_xics_setup_cpu(int cpu)
> >>>>  	set_cpu_current_state(cpu, CPU_STATE_ONLINE);
> >>>>  	set_default_offline_state(cpu);
> >>>>  #endif
> >>>> -	pseries_notify_cpuidle_add_cpu(cpu);
> >>>>  }
> >>>>  
> >>>>  static int __devinit smp_pSeries_kick_cpu(int nr)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Deepthi
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists