From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>,
"kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec: disable non-boot CPUs
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:59:48 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50D35214.4090008@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121220173611.GC5387@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
On 12/20/2012 10:36 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 05:21:56PM +0000, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 12/20/2012 03:49 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> If you do manage to get this merged, please can you follow up with a patch
>>> to remove the smp_kill_cpus bits from arch/arm/kernel/smp.c please? It only
>>> exists as a hook to do exactly this and currently nobody is using it afaict.
>>
>> I originally implemented this in
>> arch/arm/kernel/process.c:machine_shutdown(), which currently is:
>>
>> void machine_shutdown(void)
>> {
>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> smp_send_stop();
>> #endif
>> }
>>
>> and I changed it to something like:
>>
>> void machine_shutdown(void)
>> {
>> #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
>> disable_nonboot_cpus();
>> #elifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> smp_send_stop();
>> #endif
>> }
>>
>> ... but then figured that moving it up into the core kexec code would be
>> better, so that everything always worked the same way.
>
> Hmmm, isn't this racy: requiring the secondaries to hit idle and notice
> they're offline and call cpu_die before the primary has replace the kernel
> image?
Isn't disable_nonboot_cpus() synchronous? If not, I imagine my original
patch wasn't any better in this respect, except that the hotunplug
happened earlier, and hence reduced the likelihood of actually seeing
any such issues.
>> Anyway, the change above addresses Eric's concern about isolating the
>> change to ARM. Does that seem like a reasonable thing for the ARM code
>> to do?
>
> I think you're better off using what we currently have and hanging your code
> off platform_cpu_kill.
OK, I'll look into that. Joseph Lo just posted patches to implement
cpu_kill() on Tegra, which was needed to fix some issues in our hotplug
code anyway. Perhaps that will remove the need for any other changes...
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-20 17:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-19 23:44 [PATCH] kexec: disable non-boot CPUs Stephen Warren
2012-12-19 23:55 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-12-20 10:49 ` Will Deacon
2012-12-20 17:21 ` Stephen Warren
2012-12-20 17:36 ` Will Deacon
2012-12-20 17:59 ` Stephen Warren [this message]
2012-12-20 20:15 ` Stephen Warren
2012-12-23 11:06 ` Will Deacon
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=50D35214.4090008@wwwdotorg.org \
--to=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=swarren@nvidia.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox