[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87y2j6wmm7.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 17:44:48 +0100
From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To: Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
Linux on Hyper-V List <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
Vineeth Pillai <viremana@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Sunil Muthuswamy <sunilmut@...rosoft.com>,
Nuno Das Neves <nunodasneves@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
Lillian Grassin-Drake <ligrassi@...rosoft.com>,
"K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/17] x86/hyperv: implement and use hv_smp_prepare_cpus
Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org> writes:
> Microsoft Hypervisor requires the root partition to make a few
> hypercalls to setup application processors before they can be used.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lillian Grassin-Drake <ligrassi@...rosoft.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sunil Muthuswamy <sunilmut@...rosoft.com>
> Co-Developed-by: Lillian Grassin-Drake <ligrassi@...rosoft.com>
> Co-Developed-by: Sunil Muthuswamy <sunilmut@...rosoft.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>
> ---
> CPU hotplug and unplug is not yet supported in this setup, so those
> paths remain untouched.
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c
> index f7633e1e4c82..4795e54550e6 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c
> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
> #include <asm/reboot.h>
> #include <asm/nmi.h>
> #include <clocksource/hyperv_timer.h>
> +#include <asm/numa.h>
>
> struct ms_hyperv_info ms_hyperv;
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ms_hyperv);
> @@ -208,6 +209,30 @@ static void __init hv_smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void)
> hv_init_spinlocks();
> #endif
> }
> +
> +static void __init hv_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus)
> +{
> +#if defined(CONFIG_X86_64)
'#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64' is equally good as you can't compile x86_64
support as a module :-)
> + int i;
> + int ret;
> +
> + native_smp_prepare_cpus(max_cpus);
> +
So hypotetically, if hv_root_partition is true but 'ifdef CONFIG_X86_64'
is false, we won't even be doing native_smp_prepare_cpus()? This doesn't
sound right. Either move it outside of #ifdef or put the #ifdef around
'smp_ops.smp_prepare_cpus' assignment too.
> + for_each_present_cpu(i) {
> + if (i == 0)
> + continue;
> + ret = hv_call_add_logical_proc(numa_cpu_node(i), i, cpu_physical_id(i));
> + BUG_ON(ret);
> + }
> +
> + for_each_present_cpu(i) {
> + if (i == 0)
> + continue;
> + ret = hv_call_create_vp(numa_cpu_node(i), hv_current_partition_id, i, i);
> + BUG_ON(ret);
> + }
> +#endif
> +}
> #endif
>
> static void __init ms_hyperv_init_platform(void)
> @@ -364,6 +389,8 @@ static void __init ms_hyperv_init_platform(void)
>
> # ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> smp_ops.smp_prepare_boot_cpu = hv_smp_prepare_boot_cpu;
> + if (hv_root_partition)
> + smp_ops.smp_prepare_cpus = hv_smp_prepare_cpus;
> # endif
>
> /*
--
Vitaly
Powered by blists - more mailing lists