linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH arm 1/2] arm64: Use common outgoing-CPU-notification code

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150501162915.GI27755@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:	Fri, 1 May 2015 17:29:15 +0100
From:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	will.deacon@....com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH arm 1/2] arm64: Use common outgoing-CPU-notification code

On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 08:08:48AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:50:55AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 01:07:33PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> > > index 328b8ce4b007..6dc727a6e73e 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> > > @@ -252,15 +252,13 @@ static int op_cpu_kill(unsigned int cpu)
> > >  	return cpu_ops[cpu]->cpu_kill(cpu);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > -static DECLARE_COMPLETION(cpu_died);
> > > -
> > >  /*
> > >   * called on the thread which is asking for a CPU to be shutdown -
> > >   * waits until shutdown has completed, or it is timed out.
> > >   */
> > >  void __cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
> > >  {
> > > -	if (!wait_for_completion_timeout(&cpu_died, msecs_to_jiffies(5000))) {
> > > +	if (!cpu_wait_death(cpu, 5)) {
> > >  		pr_crit("CPU%u: cpu didn't die\n", cpu);
> > >  		return;
> > >  	}
> > > @@ -293,7 +291,7 @@ void cpu_die(void)
> > >  	local_irq_disable();
> > >  
> > >  	/* Tell __cpu_die() that this CPU is now safe to dispose of */
> > > -	complete(&cpu_died);
> > > +	(void)cpu_report_death();
> > >  
> > >  	/*
> > >  	 * Actually shutdown the CPU. This must never fail. The specific hotplug
> > 
> > Are these functions are only defined when HOTPLUG_CPU is enabled? On
> > arm64 we can end up with this option disabled if SUSPEND is disabled.
> 
> Yep, only with HOTPLUG_CPU.  And yes, both SUSPEND and HIBERNATION can
> force HOTPLUG_CPU, so if you have neiter SUSPEND nor HIBERNATION, you
> won't have HOTPLUG_CPU.  This -should- be OK, because you should also
> not have __cpu_die() if !HOTPLUG_CPU.

Ah, you are right. I got myself confused.

So is this patch ready for upstreaming or just for our information?

-- 
Catalin
--
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/