[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87v7wozex3.ffs@tglx>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:37:28 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki"
<rafael@...nel.org>, Patryk Wlazlyn <patryk.wlazlyn@...ux.intel.com>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, len.brown@...el.com,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] x86/smp native_play_dead: Prefer
cpuidle_play_dead() over mwait_play_dead()
On Fri, Nov 15 2024 at 11:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 02:21:19AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 14 2024 at 13:03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 03:01:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> >
>> >> No, not mwait hint. We need an instruction that:
>> >>
>> >> - goes to deepest C state
>> >> - drops into WAIT-for-Start-IPI (SIPI)
>> >>
>> >> Notably, it should not wake from:
>> >>
>> >> - random memory writes
>> >> - NMI, MCE, SMI and other such non-maskable thingies
>> >> - anything else -- the memory pointed to by RIP might no longer exist
>> >>
>> >> Lets call the instruction: DEAD.
>> >
>> > So, turns out that when you send INIT to an AP it does the whole drop
>> > into Wait-for-SIPI and ignore non-maskable crap.
>> >
>> > The reason we don't do that is because INIT to CPU0 (BP) is somewhat
>> > fatal, but since Thomas killed all that CPU0 hotplug crap, I think we
>> > can actually go do that.
>>
>> Instead of playing dead or to kick out CPUs from whatever dead play
>> routine they are in?
>>
>> playimg dead is to stay because INIT will bring back the MCE broadcast
>> problem, which we try to avoid by bringing SMT siblings up just to shut
>> them down again by playing dead.
>>
>> You need a MCE broadcast free system and/or some sensible BIOS bringup
>> code for that to work...
>
> Isn't INIT a better state to be in during kexec than HLT?
For the kexec transition I agree that INIT is better. We just need to be
careful for a crash kexec when the crashing CPU is not CPU0...
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists