[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=WCcwc71hSMQVQN4AYi7XhKpOwbOZnt8b9iGUgqmvzuKw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 09:48:08 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Lecopzer Chen <lecopzer.chen@...iatek.com>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
Tomohiro Misono <misono.tomohiro@...itsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Masayoshi Mizuma <msys.mizuma@...il.com>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, ito-yuichi@...itsu.com,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org>, jpoimboe@...nel.org,
keescook@...omium.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
philmd@...aro.org, samitolvanen@...gle.com,
scott@...amperecomputing.com, vschneid@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 3/7] arm64: smp: Remove dedicated wakeup IPI
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 5:39 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 9:06 AM Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_ACPI_PARKING_PROTOCOL
> > +void arch_send_wakeup_ipi(unsigned int cpu)
> > +{
> > + /*
> > + * We use a scheduler IPI to wake the CPU as this avoids the need for a
> > + * dedicated IPI and we can safely handle spurious scheduler IPIs.
> > + */
> > + arch_smp_send_reschedule(cpu);
>
> I was backporting this to our ChromeOS kernels and our build test bot
> noticed that arch_smp_send_reschedule() didn't exist in older kernels.
> That's fine--I can always adjust this patch when backporting or
> cherry-pick extra patches, but it made me wonder. Is there a reason
> you chose to use arch_smp_send_reschedule() directly here instead of
> smp_send_reschedule()? I guess the only difference is that you're
> bypassing the tracing. Is that on purpose? Should we add a comment
> about it, or change this to smp_send_reschedule()?
FWIW, I posted a patch changing this to smp_send_reschedule(). Please
yell if this is incorrect.
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231002094526.2.I2e6d22fc42ccbf6b26465a28a10e36e05ccf3075@changeid
Powered by blists - more mailing lists