Re: [RFC PATCH v2 22/35] ACPI: Check _STA present bit before making CPUs not present

["Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>]

On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 10:45:39AM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
> On 9/14/23 02:38, James Morse wrote:
> > When called acpi_processor_post_eject() unconditionally make a CPU
> > not-present and unregisters it.
> > 
> > To add support for AML events where the CPU has become disabled, but
> > remains present, the _STA method should be checked before calling
> > acpi_processor_remove().
> > 
> > Rename acpi_processor_post_eject() acpi_processor_remove_possible(), and
> > check the _STA before calling.
> > 
> > Adding the function prototype for arch_unregister_cpu() allows the
> > preprocessor guards to be removed.
> > 
> > After this change CPUs will remain registered and visible to
> > user-space as offline if buggy firmware triggers an eject-request,
> > but doesn't clear the corresponding _STA bits after _EJ0 has been
> > called.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> >   include/linux/cpu.h           |  1 +
> >   2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> > index 00dcc23d49a8..2cafea1edc24 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> > @@ -457,13 +457,12 @@ static int acpi_processor_add(struct acpi_device *device,
> >   	return result;
> >   }
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG_PRESENT_CPU
> >   /* Removal */
> > -static void acpi_processor_post_eject(struct acpi_device *device)
> > +static void acpi_processor_make_not_present(struct acpi_device *device)
> >   {
> >   	struct acpi_processor *pr;
> > -	if (!device || !acpi_driver_data(device))
> > +	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG_PRESENT_CPU))
> >   		return;
> 
> In order to use IS_ENABLED(),

And the rest of this statement is where?

> >   	pr = acpi_driver_data(device);
> > @@ -501,7 +500,29 @@ static void acpi_processor_post_eject(struct acpi_device *device)
> >   	free_cpumask_var(pr->throttling.shared_cpu_map);
> >   	kfree(pr);
> >   }
> > -#endif /* CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG_PRESENT_CPU */
> > +
> > +static void acpi_processor_post_eject(struct acpi_device *device)
> > +{
> > +	struct acpi_processor *pr;
> > +	unsigned long long sta;
> > +	acpi_status status;
> > +
> > +	if (!device)
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	pr = acpi_driver_data(device);
> > +	if (!pr || pr->id >= nr_cpu_ids || invalid_phys_cpuid(pr->phys_id))
> > +		return;
> > +
> 
> Do we really need to validate the logic and hardware CPU IDs here? I think
> the ACPI processor device can't be added successfully if one of them is
> invalid.
> 
> > +	status = acpi_evaluate_integer(pr->handle, "_STA", NULL, &sta);
> > +	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	if (cpu_present(pr->id) && !(sta & ACPI_STA_DEVICE_PRESENT)) {
> > +		acpi_processor_make_not_present(device);
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> > +}
> >   #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_MIGHT_HAVE_ACPI_PDC
> >   bool __init processor_physically_present(acpi_handle handle)
> > @@ -626,9 +647,7 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id processor_device_ids[] = {
> >   static struct acpi_scan_handler processor_handler = {
> >   	.ids = processor_device_ids,
> >   	.attach = acpi_processor_add,
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG_PRESENT_CPU
> >   	.post_eject = acpi_processor_post_eject,
> > -#endif
> >   	.hotplug = {
> >   		.enabled = true,
> >   	},
> > diff --git a/include/linux/cpu.h b/include/linux/cpu.h
> > index a71691d7c2ca..e117c06e0c6b 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/cpu.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/cpu.h
> > @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ struct device *cpu_device_create(struct device *parent, void *drvdata,
> >   				 const struct attribute_group **groups,
> >   				 const char *fmt, ...);
> >   extern int arch_register_cpu(int cpu);
> > +extern void arch_unregister_cpu(int cpu);
> 
> arch_unregister_cpu() is protected by CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU in the individual architectures,
> for example arch/ia64/kernel/topology.c

Yes, I agree, there _may_ be a reference to arch_unregister_cpu() if
the compiler doesn't optimise the "if(0) return".

As things stand in my "head" tree (which I'll be posting once 6.7-rc1
is out) at the point that this patch exists in the series, there are
no architectures which provide arch_unregister_cpu(), and the only
implementation of it is the __weak one in drivers/base/cpu.c

That implementation is also ifdef'd with CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU and also
CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES.

Meanwhile, acpi_processor.c is always built with ACPI, and while we
have IS_ENABLED() clauses with James' patches for both of these
symbols, if the compiler doesn't optimise the code away, we will end
up with a reference and a link-time error. That being said, the 0-day
bot has not reported anything as yet (and it builds my tree.)

So, is this a problem that needs to be solved or not?

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!