All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wallak <wallak@free.fr>
To: Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, lenb <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ACPI "_PDC" - acpi_processor_set_pdc()- execution regression - Linux-3.x
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:59:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EE6792A.8070901@free.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1323657511.17515.11.camel@minggr>

Hi Lin Ming,

This last patch, modifying the behavior of acpi_get_cpuid(), works fine 
on my non SMP enabled kernel. The test was done on a Dell X300, 
acpi_processor_set_pdc() was properly called, without the changes done 
by my previous patch.

Best Regards,
Wallak.

Lin Ming wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 10:26 +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From:<wallak@free.fr>
>> Date: Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 6:38 AM
>> Subject: ACPI "_PDC" - acpi_processor_set_pdc()- execution regression
>> - Linux-3.x
>> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>>
>>
>> We have a regression on the ACPI stack of the last linux kernel line 3.x (3.1.4,
>> 3.2-rc4...). The ACPI "_PDC" chunk is not executed on some computers (e.g. Dell
>> X300; the function acpi_processor_set_pdc() is not called). This issue yield to
>> an uninitialized state of some ACPI variables.
>>
>> A patch is available below. This patch come back to the previous linux behavior,
>> and works fine.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Wallak.
>>
>> --- linux-3.1.4-mdf/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c.orig  2011-12-07
>> 23:12:57.000000000 +0100
>> +++ linux-3.1.4-mdf/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c       2011-12-07
>> 23:13:39.000000000 +0100
>> @@ -223,8 +223,8 @@
>>         type = (acpi_type == ACPI_TYPE_DEVICE) ? 1 : 0;
>>         cpuid = acpi_get_cpuid(handle, type, acpi_id);
>>
>> -       if (cpuid == -1)
>> -               return false;
>> +       if ((cpuid == -1)&&  (num_possible_cpus()>  1))
> Hi Wallak,
>
> BIOS may define multiple CPU handles even for UP
> processor(see below).
>
> processor_physically_present(acpi_handle handle) will be called for each
> CPU handles.
>
> We should only return valid value for CPU0 on UP processor.
> With your patch, processor_physically_present will return true for all
> CPU handles(CPU0, CPU1, CPU2, CPU3). This is not we want.
>
> I think below is the correct fix.
> Could you help to test it?
>
> Thanks.
>
> > From 5c6de7311ced7a1febf85fdcc08b6116bcfe8138 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Lin Ming<ming.m.lin@intel.com>
> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:04:53 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] ACPI: processor: fix acpi_get_cpuid for UP processor
>
> For UP processor, it is likely that no _MAT method or MADT table defined.
> So currently acpi_get_cpuid(...) always return -1 for UP processor.
> This is wrong. It should return valid value for CPU0.
>
> In the other hand, BIOS may define multiple CPU handles even for UP
> processor, for example
>
>          Scope (_PR)
>          {
>              Processor (CPU0, 0x00, 0x00000410, 0x06) {}
>              Processor (CPU1, 0x01, 0x00000410, 0x06) {}
>              Processor (CPU2, 0x02, 0x00000410, 0x06) {}
>              Processor (CPU3, 0x03, 0x00000410, 0x06) {}
>          }
>
> We should only return valid value for CPU0's acpi handle.
> And return invalid value for others.
>
> http://marc.info/?t=132329819900003&r=1&w=2
>
> Reported-by: wallak@free.fr
> Signed-off-by: Lin Ming<ming.m.lin@intel.com>
> ---
>   drivers/acpi/processor_core.c |   26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>   1 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
> index 3a0428e..3372900 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
> @@ -173,8 +173,30 @@ int acpi_get_cpuid(acpi_handle handle, int type, u32 acpi_id)
>   	apic_id = map_mat_entry(handle, type, acpi_id);
>   	if (apic_id == -1)
>   		apic_id = map_madt_entry(type, acpi_id);
> -	if (apic_id == -1)
> -		return apic_id;
> +	if (apic_id == -1) {
> +		/*
> +		 * On UP processor, there is no _MAT or MADT table.
> +		 * So above apic_id is always set to -1.
> +		 *
> +		 * BIOS may define multiple CPU handles even for UP processor.
> +		 * For example,
> +		 *
> +		 * Scope (_PR)
> +                 * {
> +		 *     Processor (CPU0, 0x00, 0x00000410, 0x06) {}
> +		 *     Processor (CPU1, 0x01, 0x00000410, 0x06) {}
> +		 *     Processor (CPU2, 0x02, 0x00000410, 0x06) {}
> +		 *     Processor (CPU3, 0x03, 0x00000410, 0x06) {}
> +		 * }
> +		 *
> +		 * Ignores apic_id and always return 0 for CPU0's handle.
> +		 * Return -1 for other CPU's handle.
> +		 */
> +		if (acpi_id == 0)
> +			return acpi_id;
> +		else
> +			return apic_id;
> +	}
>
>   #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>   	for_each_possible_cpu(i) {


      reply	other threads:[~2011-12-12 22:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-12-07 22:38 ACPI "_PDC" - acpi_processor_set_pdc()- execution regression - Linux-3.x wallak
2011-12-08  5:01 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2011-12-08  5:01   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2011-12-08  7:40   ` Lin Ming
     [not found] ` <CAF1ivSZX37HRyxJX_rdkZ4pVrxjCZeM39mAs4ZKcqWCYShxaxQ@mail.gmail.com>
2011-12-12  2:38   ` Lin Ming
2011-12-12 21:59     ` Wallak [this message]

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=4EE6792A.8070901@free.fr \
    --to=wallak@free.fr \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ming.m.lin@intel.com \
    /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.