linux-kernel - [PATCH] powerpc/pseries/cpuhp: respect current SMT when adding new CPU

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20230213124510.12651-1-ldufour@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Feb 2023 13:45:10 +0100
From:   Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     mpe@...erman.id.au, npiggin@...il.com, christophe.leroy@...roup.eu,
        nathanl@...ux.ibm.com, Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH] powerpc/pseries/cpuhp: respect current SMT when adding new CPU

When a new CPU is added, the kernel is activating all its threads. This
leads to weird, but functional, result when adding CPU on a SMT 4 system
for instance.

Here the newly added CPU 1 has 8 threads while the other one has 4 threads
active (system has been booted with the 'smt-enabled=4' kernel option):

ltcden3-lp12:~ # ppc64_cpu --info
Core   0:    0*    1*    2*    3*    4     5     6     7
Core   1:    8*    9*   10*   11*   12*   13*   14*   15*

There is no SMT value in the kernel. It is possible to run unbalanced LPAR
with 2 threads for a CPU, 4 for another one, and 5 on the latest.

To work around this possibility, and assuming that the LPAR run with the
same number of threads for each CPU, which is the common case, the number
of active threads of the CPU doing the hot-plug operation is computed. Only
that number of threads will be activated for the newly added CPU.

This way on a LPAR running in SMT=4, newly added CPU will be running 4
threads, which is what a end user would expect.

Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>
---
 arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
index 090ae5a1e0f5..58a7c97fc475 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
@@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ static int dlpar_online_cpu(struct device_node *dn)
 {
 	int rc = 0;
 	unsigned int cpu;
-	int len, nthreads, i;
+	int len, nthreads, i, smt;
 	const __be32 *intserv;
 	u32 thread;
 
@@ -392,6 +392,17 @@ static int dlpar_online_cpu(struct device_node *dn)
 
 	nthreads = len / sizeof(u32);
 
+	/*
+	 * Compute the number of active threads for the current CPU, assuming
+	 * the system is homogeus, we don't want to active more threads than the
+	 * current SMT setting.
+	 */
+	for (cpu = cpu_first_thread_sibling(raw_smp_processor_id()), smt = 0;
+	     cpu <= cpu_last_thread_sibling(raw_smp_processor_id()); cpu++) {
+		if (cpu_online(cpu))
+			smt++;
+	}
+
 	cpu_maps_update_begin();
 	for (i = 0; i < nthreads; i++) {
 		thread = be32_to_cpu(intserv[i]);
@@ -400,10 +411,13 @@ static int dlpar_online_cpu(struct device_node *dn)
 				continue;
 			cpu_maps_update_done();
 			find_and_update_cpu_nid(cpu);
-			rc = device_online(get_cpu_device(cpu));
-			if (rc) {
-				dlpar_offline_cpu(dn);
-				goto out;
+			/* Don't active CPU over the current SMT setting */
+			if (smt-- > 0) {
+				rc = device_online(get_cpu_device(cpu));
+				if (rc) {
+					dlpar_offline_cpu(dn);
+					goto out;
+				}
 			}
 			cpu_maps_update_begin();
 
-- 
2.39.1