[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZUy0h/lc3QCPsuU8@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2023 10:29:27 +0000
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@...hat.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, linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@...wei.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
jianyong.wu@....com, justin.he@....com,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 06/22] drivers: base: Use present CPUs in
GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES
On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 06:09:32PM +0800, Shaoqin Huang wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> On 11/7/23 18:29, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > From: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
> >
> > Three of the five ACPI architectures create sysfs entries using
> > register_cpu() for present CPUs, whereas arm64, riscv and all
> > GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES do this for possible CPUs.
> >
> > Registering a CPU is what causes them to show up in sysfs.
> >
> > It makes very little sense to register all possible CPUs. Registering
> > a CPU is what triggers the udev notifications allowing user-space to
> > react to newly added CPUs.
> >
> > To allow all five ACPI architectures to use GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES, change
> > it to use for_each_present_cpu(). Making the ACPI architectures use
> > GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES is a pre-requisite step to centralise their
> > cpu_register() logic, before moving it into the ACPI processor driver.
> > When ACPI is disabled this work would be done by
> > cpu_dev_register_generic().
>
> What do you actually mean about when ACPI is disabled this work would be
Firstly, please note that "you" is not appropriate here. This is James'
commit message, not mine.
> done by cpu_dev_register_generic()? Is the work means register the cpu?
When ACPI is disabled _and_ CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES is enabled, then
cpu_dev_register_generic() will call arch_register_cpu() for each present
CPU after this commit, rather than for each _possible_ CPU (which is the
actual code change here.)
> I'm not quite understand that, and how about when ACPI is enabled, which
> function do this work?
This is what happens later in the series.
"drivers: base: Allow parts of GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES to be overridden"
adds a test for CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES, so this will only be used
with architectures using GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES. Then in:
"ACPI: processor: Register all CPUs from acpi_processor_get_info()"
which is not part of this series, this adds a call to arch_register_cpu()
in the ACPI code, and disables this path via a test for !acpi_disabled.
Essentially, this path gets used to register the present CPUs when
firmware (ACPI) isn't going to be registering the present CPUs.
I've changed this to:
"It makes very little sense to register all possible CPUs. Registering
a CPU is what triggers the udev notifications allowing user-space to
react to newly added CPUs.
"To allow all five ACPI architectures to use GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES, change
it to use for_each_present_cpu().
"Making the ACPI architectures use GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES is a pre-requisite
step to centralise their register_cpu() logic, before moving it into the
ACPI processor driver. When we add support for register CPUs from ACPI
in a later patch, we will avoid registering CPUs in this path."
which I hope makes it clearer.
> > After this change, openrisc and hexagon systems that use the max_cpus
> > command line argument would not see the other CPUs present in sysfs.
> > This should not be a problem as these CPUs can't bre brought online as
> ^ nit: can't be
Thanks, I'll fix that.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists