[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230914170155.000065cf@Huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 17:01:55 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
CC: <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <loongarch@...ts.linux.dev>,
<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>, <kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev>,
<x86@...nel.org>, Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@...wei.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
<jianyong.wu@....com>, <justin.he@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 31/35] arm64: psci: Ignore DENIED CPUs
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 16:38:19 +0000
James Morse <james.morse@....com> wrote:
> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
>
> When a CPU is marked as disabled, but online capable in the MADT, PSCI
> applies some firmware policy to control when it can be brought online.
> PSCI returns DENIED to a CPU_ON request if this is not currently
> permitted. The OS can learn the current policy from the _STA enabled bit.
>
> Handle the PSCI DENIED return code gracefully instead of printing an
> error.
Specification reference would be good particularly as it's only been
added as a possibility fairly recently.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
> [ morse: Rewrote commit message ]
> Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c | 2 +-
> arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 3 ++-
> drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c
> index 29a8e444db83..4fcc0cdd757b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c
> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ static int cpu_psci_cpu_boot(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> phys_addr_t pa_secondary_entry = __pa_symbol(secondary_entry);
> int err = psci_ops.cpu_on(cpu_logical_map(cpu), pa_secondary_entry);
> - if (err)
> + if (err && err != -EPROBE_DEFER)
Hmm. EPROBE_DEFER has very specific meaning around driver requesting a retry
when some other bit of the system has finished booting.
I'm not sure it's a good idea for this use case. Maybe just keep to EPERM
as psci_to_linux_errno() will return anyway. Seems valid to me, or
is the requirement to use EPROBE_DEFER coming from further up the stack?
> pr_err("failed to boot CPU%d (%d)\n", cpu, err);
>
> return err;
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> index 8c8f55721786..e958db987665 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -124,7 +124,8 @@ int __cpu_up(unsigned int cpu, struct task_struct *idle)
> /* Now bring the CPU into our world */
> ret = boot_secondary(cpu, idle);
> if (ret) {
> - pr_err("CPU%u: failed to boot: %d\n", cpu, ret);
> + if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> + pr_err("CPU%u: failed to boot: %d\n", cpu, ret);
> return ret;
> }
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c b/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c
> index d9629ff87861..f7ab3fed3528 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c
> @@ -218,6 +218,8 @@ static int __psci_cpu_on(u32 fn, unsigned long cpuid, unsigned long entry_point)
> int err;
>
> err = invoke_psci_fn(fn, cpuid, entry_point, 0);
> + if (err == PSCI_RET_DENIED)
> + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> return psci_to_linux_errno(err);
> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists