[PATCHv3 2/5] arm64: factor out spin-table boot method

[santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Santosh Shilimkar)]

On Wednesday 14 August 2013 12:20 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> The arm64 kernel has an internal holding pen, which is necessary for
> some systems where we can't bring CPUs online individually and must hold
> multiple CPUs in a safe area until the kernel is able to handle them.
> The current SMP infrastructure for arm64 is closely coupled to this
> holding pen, and alternative boot methods must launch CPUs into the pen,
> where they sit before they are launched into the kernel proper.
> 
> With PSCI (and possibly other future boot methods), we can bring CPUs
> online individually, and need not perform the secondary_holding_pen
> dance. Instead, this patch factors the holding pen management code out
> to the spin-table boot method code, as it is the only boot method
> requiring the pen.
> 
> A new entry point for secondaries, secondary_entry is added for other
> boot methods to use, which bypasses the holding pen and its associated
> overhead when bringing CPUs online. The smp.pen.text section is also
> removed, as the pen can live in head.text without problem.
> 
> The smp_operations structure is extended with two new functions,
> cpu_boot and cpu_postboot, for bringing a cpu into the kernel and
> performing any post-boot cleanup required by a bootmethod (e.g.
> resetting the secondary_holding_pen_release to INVALID_HWID).
> Documentation is added for smp_operations.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
> ---

[..]
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp_spin_table.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp_spin_table.c
> index 5fecffc..87af6bb 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp_spin_table.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp_spin_table.c
> @@ -16,13 +16,36 @@
>   * along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
>   */
>  
> +#include <linux/delay.h>
>  #include <linux/init.h>
>  #include <linux/of.h>
>  #include <linux/smp.h>
>  
>  #include <asm/cacheflush.h>
> +#include <asm/cputype.h>
> +#include <asm/smp_plat.h>
> +
> +extern void secondary_holding_pen(void);
> +volatile unsigned long secondary_holding_pen_release = INVALID_HWID;
>  
>  static phys_addr_t cpu_release_addr[NR_CPUS];
> +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(boot_lock);
> +
> +/*
> + * Write secondary_holding_pen_release in a way that is guaranteed to be
> + * visible to all observers, irrespective of whether they're taking part
> + * in coherency or not.  This is necessary for the hotplug code to work
> + * reliably.
> + */
> +static void write_pen_release(u64 val)
> +{
> +	void *start = (void *)&secondary_holding_pen_release;
> +	unsigned long size = sizeof(secondary_holding_pen_release);
> +
> +	secondary_holding_pen_release = val;
> +	__flush_dcache_area(start, size);
> +}
> +
>  
>  static int smp_spin_table_cpu_init(struct device_node *dn, unsigned int cpu)
>  {
> @@ -59,8 +82,60 @@ static int smp_spin_table_cpu_prepare(unsigned int cpu)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int smp_spin_table_cpu_boot(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> +	unsigned long timeout;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Set synchronisation state between this boot processor
> +	 * and the secondary one
> +	 */
> +	raw_spin_lock(&boot_lock);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Update the pen release flag.
> +	 */
> +	write_pen_release(cpu_logical_map(cpu));
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Send an event, causing the secondaries to read pen_release.
> +	 */
> +	sev();
> +
> +	timeout = jiffies + (1 * HZ);
> +	while (time_before(jiffies, timeout)) {
> +		if (secondary_holding_pen_release == INVALID_HWID)
> +			break;
> +		udelay(10);
> +	}
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Now the secondary core is starting up let it run its
> +	 * calibrations, then wait for it to finish
> +	 */
> +	raw_spin_unlock(&boot_lock);
> +
> +	return secondary_holding_pen_release != INVALID_HWID ? -ENOSYS : 0;
> +}
> +
> +void smp_spin_table_cpu_postboot(void)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * Let the primary processor know we're out of the pen.
> +	 */
> +	write_pen_release(INVALID_HWID);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Synchronise with the boot thread.
> +	 */
> +	raw_spin_lock(&boot_lock);
> +	raw_spin_unlock(&boot_lock);
> +}
> +
I was just wonderring whether we can absrtact the synchronization
further out of spin_table and psci method. At least the lock
synchronization is common and needed in both cases.

Other than patch looks fine to me.
Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>