[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <507D8BBD.3010306@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 22:00:53 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
CC: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Asit K Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Arjan Dan De Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Suresh B Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Chen Gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pm <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 05/12] x86, hotplug, suspend: Online CPU0 for suspend
or hibernate
On 10/16/2012 09:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 of October 2012 11:05:18 Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 10/16/2012 02:20 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Friday 12 of October 2012 09:09:42 Fenghua Yu wrote:
>>>> From: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
>>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * When bsp_check() is called in hibernate and suspend, cpu hotplug
>>>> + * is disabled already. So it's unnessary to handle race condition between
>>>> + * cpumask query and cpu hotplug.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static int bsp_check(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + if (cpumask_first(cpu_online_mask) != 0) {
>>>> + pr_warn("CPU0 is offline.\n");
>>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int bsp_pm_callback(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long action,
>>>> + void *ptr)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int ret = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + switch (action) {
>>>> + case PM_SUSPEND_PREPARE:
>>>> + case PM_HIBERNATION_PREPARE:
>>>> + ret = bsp_check();
>>>> + break;
>>>> + default:
>>>> + break;
>>>> + }
>>>> + return notifier_from_errno(ret);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I wonder if there's anything preventing CPU0 from becoming offline after you've
>>> done this check and before user space is frozen?
>>>
>>
>> Hi Rafael,
>>
>> bsp_pm_callback runs as a low priority notifier callback, specifically with lower
>> priority than the cpu_hotplug_pm_callback (as mentioned in the comment below).
>> And cpu_hotplug_pm_callback disables regular CPU hotplug (till the suspend/resume
>> sequence is complete).. So there is no chance for CPU0 to become offline after that.
>>
>> Or, are you thinking of some other scenario where CPU0 can go offline?
>
> No, that should be fine technically, but designs relying on notifier priority
> for correctness are kind of fragile.
>
Hmm.. I agree.
> Would it be possible to make cpu_hotplug_pm_callback() do the BSP online check?
>
Good idea! I think that could be done quite easily. And while doing that, it would
be good to rethink what to do in patch 12/12 (Debug CPU0 hotplug) to fix the bug I
pointed out in my other mail.
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
>>>> +static int __init bsp_pm_check_init(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Set this bsp_pm_callback as lower priority than
>>>> + * cpu_hotplug_pm_callback. So cpu_hotplug_pm_callback will be called
>>>> + * earlier to disable cpu hotplug before bsp online check.
>>>> + */
>>>> + pm_notifier(bsp_pm_callback, -INT_MAX);
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +core_initcall(bsp_pm_check_init);
>
--
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