[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230512205256.369512093@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 23:07:24 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Arjan van de Veen <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>,
"Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>,
Piotr Gorski <lucjan.lucjanov@...il.com>,
Usama Arif <usama.arif@...edance.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Sabin Rapan <sabrapan@...zon.com>,
"Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@...cle.com>
Subject: [patch V4 17/37] x86/xen/smp_pv: Remove wait for CPU online
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Now that the core code drops sparse_irq_lock after the idle thread
synchronized, it's pointless to wait for the AP to mark itself online.
Whether the control CPU runs in a wait loop or sleeps in the core code
waiting for the online operation to complete makes no difference.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Tested-by: Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
---
arch/x86/xen/smp_pv.c | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
--- a/arch/x86/xen/smp_pv.c
+++ b/arch/x86/xen/smp_pv.c
@@ -340,11 +340,11 @@ static int xen_pv_cpu_up(unsigned int cp
xen_pmu_init(cpu);
- rc = HYPERVISOR_vcpu_op(VCPUOP_up, xen_vcpu_nr(cpu), NULL);
- BUG_ON(rc);
-
- while (cpu_report_state(cpu) != CPU_ONLINE)
- HYPERVISOR_sched_op(SCHEDOP_yield, NULL);
+ /*
+ * Why is this a BUG? If the hypercall fails then everything can be
+ * rolled back, no?
+ */
+ BUG_ON(HYPERVISOR_vcpu_op(VCPUOP_up, xen_vcpu_nr(cpu), NULL));
return 0;
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists