[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190123165607.GB55887@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 16:56:07 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Pramod Kumar <pramod.kumar@...adcom.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Dave Martin <dave.martin@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Steve Capper <steve.capper@....com>,
BCM Kernel Feedback <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/1] arm64: Use PSCI calls for CPU stop when hotplug
is supported
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:16:20AM +0530, Pramod Kumar wrote:
> If CPU hotplug is supported, ipi_cpu_stop should use PSCI cpudie
> call to stop the CPU. This call ensures L1/L2 cache flush,
> CPUs cache-cohenrecy setting w.r.to interconnect.
>
> Apart from this, this gives control to f/w to reduce power consumption
> by take appropriate decesion on power rails for plugging-out core.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pramod Kumar <pramod.kumar@...adcom.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com>
> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <scott.branden@...adcom.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> index 1598d6f..360e52b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -822,8 +822,13 @@ static void ipi_cpu_stop(unsigned int cpu)
> local_daif_mask();
> sdei_mask_local_cpu();
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> + if (cpu_ops[cpu]->cpu_die)
> + cpu_ops[cpu]->cpu_die(cpu);
> +#else
> while (1)
> cpu_relax();
> +#endif
If cpu_ops[cpu]->cpu_die is NULL, this change makes ipi_cpu_stop()
return, which is not correct.
Regardless, I don't think that there is sufficient rationale for this
change, especially given that your commit message describes
platform-specific assumptions which do not hold in general.
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists