From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, tim@xen.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: arm: wait 1000ms for a CPU to come up, instead of forever
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 15:11:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54B68729.4040908@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1421247394.19103.273.camel@citrix.com>
On 14/01/15 14:56, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> Where do you mean exactly?
>>
>> See for instance exynos5_cpu_power_up.
>
> Appears to be waiting the h/w to acknowledge that the CPU power is on,
> which is no guarantee that it is going to actually boot, or even make it
> to Xen code.
Right. This is what I was trying to say.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> + while ( !cpu_online(cpu) && NOW() < deadline )
>>>>> {
>>>>> cpu_relax();
>>>>> process_pending_softirqs();
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Nuke start of day info before checking one last time if the CPU
>>>>> + * actually came online.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Doesn't completely avoid the posibility of it trying to
>>>>> + * progress with another CPUs stack etc, but better than nothing,
>>>>> + * hopefully.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + init_data.stack = NULL;
>>>>> + init_data.cpuid = ~0;
>>>>> + smp_up_cpu = MPIDR_INVALID;
>>>>> + clean_dcache(smp_up_cpu);
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand why you need to do this. Is it for pure clean up? If
>>>> so, please explain it in the commit message.
>>>
>>> Is the comment right above it not sufficient explanation? I can insert
>>> at the end of the first paragraph "If it is not online it may still be
>>> trying and may show up later" is that would help.
>>
>> It's more clear for me with "If it is not online ...".
>>
>> For the second paragraph, I would say "It doesn't completely avoid ...".
>
> OK, I'll make both changes.
>
>> Also I was wondering if there is any possibility to turn off the cpu if
>> it doesn't come online?
>
> PSCI has a cpu_off, and there will be arch specific mechanisms. Whether
> they will work under the circumstances is hard to say. In any case that
> is out of scope for this patch.
True. I will give a look later when I will have time.
With the change in the comment:
Reviewed-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Regards,
--
Julien Grall
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-14 15:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-14 14:01 [PATCH] xen: arm: wait 1000ms for a CPU to come up, instead of forever Ian Campbell
2015-01-14 14:27 ` Julien Grall
2015-01-14 14:39 ` Ian Campbell
2015-01-14 14:51 ` Julien Grall
2015-01-14 14:56 ` Ian Campbell
2015-01-14 15:11 ` Julien Grall [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=54B68729.4040908@linaro.org \
--to=julien.grall@linaro.org \
--cc=Ian.Campbell@citrix.com \
--cc=stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=tim@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.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.