All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, bp@suse.de,
	paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, JBeulich@suse.com,
	prarit@redhat.com, drjones@redhat.com, toshi.kani@hp.com,
	riel@redhat.com, gong.chen@linux.intel.com, andi@firstfloor.org,
	lenb@kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] x86: initialize secondary CPU only if master CPU will wait for it
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 16:51:19 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140414145119.GA27683@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140414145048.3d7cf907@nial.usersys.redhat.com>


* Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:03:35 +0200
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > * Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:16:00 +0200
> > > Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > * Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > >  	/*
> > > > > +	 * wait for ACK from master CPU before continuing
> > > > > +	 * with AP initialization
> > > > > +	 */
> > > > > +	cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_initialized_mask);
> > > > > +	while (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpu_callout_mask))
> > > > > +		cpu_relax();
> > > > 
> > > > > +	/*
> > > > > +	 * wait for ACK from master CPU before continuing
> > > > > +	 * with AP initialization
> > > > > +	 */
> > > > > +	cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_initialized_mask);
> > > > > +	while (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpu_callout_mask))
> > > > > +		cpu_relax();
> > > > 
> > > > That repetitive pattern could be stuck into a properly named helper 
> > > > inline function.
> > > sure
> > > 
> > > > (Also, before the cpumask_set_cpu() we should probably do a WARN_ON() 
> > > > if the bit is already set.)
>
> WARN_ON will never be triggered here since bit is always cleared by 
> master CPU before AP gets here. There is no harm keeping WARN_ON 
> though, do you still want it be here?

The previous code panic()ed on this condition - so it makes sense to 
at least keep a WARN_ON(). That it won't ever trigger is good:

> It could be useful to put WARN_ON in do_boot_cpu() before bit is 
> cleared, so that user would see that he tries to online AP which has 
> failed previous time. It's not really necessary since failed to 
> online attempt reported in logs at ERR level now, see patch 2/5.

WARN_ON()s are not used to communicate with users, they are used to 
show developers that there's a _bug_ in the code!

So a WARN_ON() not triggering, ever, is a good thing.

Thanks,

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2014-04-14 14:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-04-10 17:14 [PATCH v3 0/5] x86: fix hang when AP bringup is too slow Igor Mammedov
2014-04-10 17:14 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] x86: initialize secondary CPU only if master CPU will wait for it Igor Mammedov
2014-04-14  9:16   ` Ingo Molnar
2014-04-14  9:52     ` Igor Mammedov
2014-04-14 10:03       ` Ingo Molnar
2014-04-14 10:21         ` Igor Mammedov
2014-04-14 12:50         ` Igor Mammedov
2014-04-14 14:51           ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2014-04-14 15:03             ` Igor Mammedov
2014-04-10 17:14 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] x86: log error on secondary CPU wakeup failure at ERR level Igor Mammedov
2014-04-10 17:14 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] x86: fix list corruption on CPU hotplug Igor Mammedov
2014-04-14  9:19   ` Ingo Molnar
2014-04-14  9:56     ` Igor Mammedov
2014-04-14 10:04       ` Ingo Molnar
2014-04-14 10:23         ` Igor Mammedov
2014-04-14 10:34           ` Ingo Molnar
2014-04-14 10:48             ` Igor Mammedov
2014-04-14 10:56               ` Ingo Molnar
2014-04-10 17:14 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] x86: fix memory corruption in acpi_unmap_lsapic() Igor Mammedov
2014-04-14  9:20   ` Ingo Molnar
2014-04-10 17:14 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] acpi_processor: do not mark present at boot but not onlined CPU as onlined Igor Mammedov
2014-04-14  9:21   ` Ingo Molnar
2014-04-15  5:36     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-04-15  5:43   ` Rafael J. Wysocki

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20140414145119.GA27683@gmail.com \
    --to=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=bp@suse.de \
    --cc=drjones@redhat.com \
    --cc=gong.chen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=imammedo@redhat.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \
    --cc=prarit@redhat.com \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=toshi.kani@hp.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.