Re: [PATCH v4 11/13] firmware: arm_sdei: add support for CPU private events

[James Morse <james.morse-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>]

Hi Will,

On 18/10/17 18:19, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 06:44:30PM +0100, James Morse wrote:
>> Private SDE events are per-cpu, and need to be registered and enabled
>> on each CPU.
>>
>> Hide this detail from the caller by adapting our {,un}register and
>> {en,dis}able calls to send an IPI to each CPU if the event is private.
>>
>> CPU private events are unregistered when the CPU is powered-off, and
>> re-registered when the CPU is brought back online. This saves bringing
>> secondary cores back online to call private_reset() on shutdown, kexec
>> and resume from hibernate.

>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_sdei.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_sdei.c
>> index 28e4c4cbb16d..5598d9ba8b5d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_sdei.c
>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_sdei.c
>> @@ -610,6 +813,7 @@ static int sdei_device_freeze(struct device *dev)
>>  {
>>  	int err;
>>  
>> +	frozen = true;
>>  	err = sdei_event_unregister_all();

> Are the release semantics from spin_unlock in sdei_event_unregister_all
> sufficient for the ordering guarantees you need?

... ordering ...

The hotplug notifiers don't touch that lock, so at the first level: no.

It looks like I was relying on the cpu-hotplug code using stop-machine for its
work, and the spinlocks changing the pre-empt count for this to work. Which is
not something I want to debug if it changes!

I'll post a patch changing this bool to a more sensible atomic type.


Thanks,

James


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html