All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Jacky Bai <ping.bai@nxp.com>
Cc: "rafael@kernel.org" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	"daniel.lezcano@linaro.org" <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
	"lpieralisi@kernel.org" <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
	"ulf.hansson@linaro.org" <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
	"james.morse@arm.com" <james.morse@arm.com>,
	"d-gole@ti.com" <d-gole@ti.com>,
	"anup@brainfault.org" <anup@brainfault.org>,
	"paul.walmsley@sifive.com" <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	"palmer@dabbelt.com" <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	"aou@eecs.berkeley.edu" <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
	"imx@lists.linux.dev" <imx@lists.linux.dev>,
	"khilman@baylibre.com" <khilman@baylibre.com>,
	"quic_tingweiz@quicinc.com" <quic_tingweiz@quicinc.com>,
	"quic_yuanjiey@quicinc.com" <quic_yuanjiey@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] cpuidle: Init cpuidle only for present CPUs
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 10:19:03 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z8rIF3fQr958cf8g@bogus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AS8PR04MB86425524495B3FEF19F32E6B87D52@AS8PR04MB8642.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>

On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 10:10:50AM +0000, Jacky Bai wrote:
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] cpuidle: Init cpuidle only for present CPUs
> > 
> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 10:02:14AM +0000, Jacky Bai wrote:
> > > Hi Sudeep,
> > >
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] cpuidle: Init cpuidle only for present CPUs
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 04:03:03PM +0800, Jacky Bai wrote:
> > > > > for_each_possible_cpu() is currently used to initialize cpuidle in
> > > > > below cpuidle drivers:
> > > > >   drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm.c
> > > > >   drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-big_little.c
> > > > >   drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c
> > > > >   drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-riscv-sbi.c
> > > > >
> > > > > However, in cpu_dev_register_generic(), for_each_present_cpu() is
> > > > > used to register CPU devices which means the CPU devices are only
> > > > > registered for present CPUs and not all possible CPUs.
> > > > >
> > > > > With nosmp or maxcpus=0, only the boot CPU is present, lead to the
> > > > > failure:
> > > > >
> > > > >   |  Failed to register cpuidle device for cpu1
> > > > >
> > > > > Then rollback to cancel all CPUs' cpuidle registration.
> > > > >
> > > > > Change for_each_possible_cpu() to for_each_present_cpu() in the
> > > > > above cpuidle drivers to ensure it only registers cpuidle devices
> > > > > for CPUs that are actually present.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: b0c69e1214bc ("drivers: base: Use present CPUs in
> > > > > GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES")
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> > > > > Tested-by: Yuanjie Yang <quic_yuanjiey@quicinc.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jacky Bai <ping.bai@nxp.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  - v4 changes:
> > > > >   - add changes for other cpuidle driver that has the similar issue
> > > > >     as cpuidle-pcsi driver.
> > > > >
> > > > >  - v3 changes:
> > > > >   - improve the changelog as suggested by Sudeep
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm.c        | 8 ++++----
> > > > >  drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-big_little.c | 2 +-
> > > > >  drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c       | 4 ++--
> > > > >  drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-riscv-sbi.c  | 4 ++--
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why have you spared drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-qcom-spm.c ? IIUC the
> > > > issue exists there as well.
> > > >
> > >
> > > For qcom-spm driver, it has below code logic to handle no cpu device
> > > case, and no rollback to cancel the whole cpuidle registration. So I just leave
> > it as it is.
> > > Do we need to update it?
> > >
> > > for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > >         ret = spm_cpuidle_register(&pdev->dev, cpu);
> > 
> > Did you look into this function ?
> 
> Yes, at the very beginning of this function it will check if the cpu device
> is available, if not, directly return -ENODEV, something I misunderstood?
> 

So why do you think spm_cpuidle_register() does anything different than
psci_idle_init_cpu(). They do exactly same check and yet you apply the
change for psci_idle_init_cpu() but not for spm_cpuidle_register().
What am I missing ?

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Jacky Bai <ping.bai@nxp.com>
Cc: "rafael@kernel.org" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	"daniel.lezcano@linaro.org" <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
	"lpieralisi@kernel.org" <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
	"ulf.hansson@linaro.org" <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
	"james.morse@arm.com" <james.morse@arm.com>,
	"d-gole@ti.com" <d-gole@ti.com>,
	"anup@brainfault.org" <anup@brainfault.org>,
	"paul.walmsley@sifive.com" <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	"palmer@dabbelt.com" <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	"aou@eecs.berkeley.edu" <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
	"imx@lists.linux.dev" <imx@lists.linux.dev>,
	"khilman@baylibre.com" <khilman@baylibre.com>,
	"quic_tingweiz@quicinc.com" <quic_tingweiz@quicinc.com>,
	"quic_yuanjiey@quicinc.com" <quic_yuanjiey@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] cpuidle: Init cpuidle only for present CPUs
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 10:19:03 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z8rIF3fQr958cf8g@bogus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AS8PR04MB86425524495B3FEF19F32E6B87D52@AS8PR04MB8642.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>

On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 10:10:50AM +0000, Jacky Bai wrote:
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] cpuidle: Init cpuidle only for present CPUs
> > 
> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 10:02:14AM +0000, Jacky Bai wrote:
> > > Hi Sudeep,
> > >
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] cpuidle: Init cpuidle only for present CPUs
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 04:03:03PM +0800, Jacky Bai wrote:
> > > > > for_each_possible_cpu() is currently used to initialize cpuidle in
> > > > > below cpuidle drivers:
> > > > >   drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm.c
> > > > >   drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-big_little.c
> > > > >   drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c
> > > > >   drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-riscv-sbi.c
> > > > >
> > > > > However, in cpu_dev_register_generic(), for_each_present_cpu() is
> > > > > used to register CPU devices which means the CPU devices are only
> > > > > registered for present CPUs and not all possible CPUs.
> > > > >
> > > > > With nosmp or maxcpus=0, only the boot CPU is present, lead to the
> > > > > failure:
> > > > >
> > > > >   |  Failed to register cpuidle device for cpu1
> > > > >
> > > > > Then rollback to cancel all CPUs' cpuidle registration.
> > > > >
> > > > > Change for_each_possible_cpu() to for_each_present_cpu() in the
> > > > > above cpuidle drivers to ensure it only registers cpuidle devices
> > > > > for CPUs that are actually present.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: b0c69e1214bc ("drivers: base: Use present CPUs in
> > > > > GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES")
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> > > > > Tested-by: Yuanjie Yang <quic_yuanjiey@quicinc.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jacky Bai <ping.bai@nxp.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  - v4 changes:
> > > > >   - add changes for other cpuidle driver that has the similar issue
> > > > >     as cpuidle-pcsi driver.
> > > > >
> > > > >  - v3 changes:
> > > > >   - improve the changelog as suggested by Sudeep
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm.c        | 8 ++++----
> > > > >  drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-big_little.c | 2 +-
> > > > >  drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c       | 4 ++--
> > > > >  drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-riscv-sbi.c  | 4 ++--
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why have you spared drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-qcom-spm.c ? IIUC the
> > > > issue exists there as well.
> > > >
> > >
> > > For qcom-spm driver, it has below code logic to handle no cpu device
> > > case, and no rollback to cancel the whole cpuidle registration. So I just leave
> > it as it is.
> > > Do we need to update it?
> > >
> > > for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > >         ret = spm_cpuidle_register(&pdev->dev, cpu);
> > 
> > Did you look into this function ?
> 
> Yes, at the very beginning of this function it will check if the cpu device
> is available, if not, directly return -ENODEV, something I misunderstood?
> 

So why do you think spm_cpuidle_register() does anything different than
psci_idle_init_cpu(). They do exactly same check and yet you apply the
change for psci_idle_init_cpu() but not for spm_cpuidle_register().
What am I missing ?

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

  reply	other threads:[~2025-03-07 10:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-03-07  8:03 [PATCH v4] cpuidle: Init cpuidle only for present CPUs Jacky Bai
2025-03-07  8:03 ` Jacky Bai
2025-03-07  9:50 ` Sudeep Holla
2025-03-07  9:50   ` Sudeep Holla
2025-03-07 10:02   ` Jacky Bai
2025-03-07 10:02     ` Jacky Bai
2025-03-07 10:04     ` Sudeep Holla
2025-03-07 10:04       ` Sudeep Holla
2025-03-07 10:10       ` Jacky Bai
2025-03-07 10:10         ` Jacky Bai
2025-03-07 10:19         ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2025-03-07 10:19           ` Sudeep Holla
2025-03-07 10:26           ` Jacky Bai
2025-03-07 10:26             ` Jacky Bai

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=Z8rIF3fQr958cf8g@bogus \
    --to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=anup@brainfault.org \
    --cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
    --cc=d-gole@ti.com \
    --cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
    --cc=imx@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=james.morse@arm.com \
    --cc=khilman@baylibre.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=lpieralisi@kernel.org \
    --cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
    --cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
    --cc=ping.bai@nxp.com \
    --cc=quic_tingweiz@quicinc.com \
    --cc=quic_yuanjiey@quicinc.com \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.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.