[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <056c22523573943347906d0235708d2a@natalenko.name>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 22:04:29 +0100
From: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
To: Usama Arif <usama.arif@...edance.com>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@....com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
pbonzini@...hat.com, paulmck@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
rcu@...r.kernel.org, mimoja@...oja.de, hewenliang4@...wei.com,
thomas.lendacky@....com, seanjc@...gle.com, pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de,
fam.zheng@...edance.com, punit.agrawal@...edance.com,
simon.evans@...edance.com, liangma@...ngbit.com,
"Limonciello, Mario" <Mario.Limonciello@....com>,
Piotr Gorski <piotrgorski@...hyos.org>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v9 0/8] Parallel CPU bringup for x86_64
On 21.02.2023 21:04, Usama Arif wrote:
> On 21/02/2023 19:10, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Tue, 2023-02-21 at 13:14 +0100, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
>>>
>>> With this in place:
>>>
>>> ```
>>> early_gdt_descr.address = (unsigned long)get_cpu_gdt_rw(0);
>>> initial_gs = per_cpu_offset(0);
>>> smpboot_control = 0;
>>> ```
>>>
>>> the resume does not work.
>>
>> Yeah, I think it's always running on CPU0 after the other CPUs are
>> taken down anyway.
>>
>> We definitely *do* need to clear smpboot_control because we absolutely
>> want it using the temp_stack we explicitly put into initial_stack, not
>> finding its own idle thread.
>>
>> The problem was that it was never being restored to STARTUP_SECONDARY
>> in the parallel modes, because that's a one-time setup in
>> native_smp_prepare_cpus(). So we can just restore it in
>> arch_thaw_secondary_cpus_begin() too, by working this into patch 6 of
>> the series.
>>
>> (Usama, I think my tree is fairly out of date now so I'll let you do
>> that? Thanks!).
>
> Sounds good! Will send out the next revision with below diff,
> checkpatch
> fixes and rebased to 6.2 (testing it now). The below fix looks good!
> Oleksandr, would you mind testing out suspend/resume with the below
> diff on your AMD machine just to make sure it fixes the issue before I
> send out the next revision with it. Thanks!
Right, so I applied the whole series + this fix, and the suspend/resume
works. Thanks!
Reported-by: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
Tested-by: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
There's another open question pending though: why would this series
cause booting up one CPU only on an older AMD CPU. But I'd expect
Piotr's fellow to chime in occasionally.
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
>> index 50621793671d..3db77a257ae2 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
>> @@ -1571,6 +1571,17 @@ void __init native_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned
>> int max_cpus)
>> void arch_thaw_secondary_cpus_begin(void)
>> {
>> + /*
>> + * On suspend, smpboot_control will have been zeroed to allow the
>> + * boot CPU to use explicitly passed values including a temporary
>> + * stack. Since native_smp_prepare_cpus() won't be called again,
>> + * restore the appropriate value for the parallel startup modes.
>> + */
>> + if (do_parallel_bringup) {
>> + smpboot_control = STARTUP_SECONDARY |
>> + (x2apic_mode ? STARTUP_APICID_CPUID_0B : STARTUP_APICID_CPUID_01);
>> + }
>> +
>> set_cache_aps_delayed_init(true);
>> }
>>
--
Oleksandr Natalenko (post-factum)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists