Re: [PATCH V2 10/21] RISC-V: smpboot: Add ACPI support in smp_setup()

Andrew Jones
2023-02-24T17:06:30Z

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 10:20:17PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 06:08:43PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 11:50:32PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote:
> > > Enable SMP boot on ACPI based platforms by using the RINTC
> > > structures in the MADT table.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com>
> > > Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> > > ---
> > > arch/riscv/include/asm/acpi.h | 7 ++++
> > > arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > 2 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/acpi.h
> > > index 7bc49f65c86b..3c3a8ac3b37a 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/acpi.h
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/acpi.h
> > > @@ -60,6 +60,13 @@ static inline void arch_fix_phys_package_id(int num, u32 slot) { }
> > >
> > > int acpi_get_riscv_isa(struct acpi_table_header *table,
> > > unsigned int cpu, const char **isa);
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA
> > > +int acpi_numa_get_nid(unsigned int cpu);
> > > +#else
> > > +static inline int acpi_numa_get_nid(unsigned int cpu) { return NUMA_NO_NODE; }
> > > +#endif /* CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA */
> >
> > The #ifdef stuff seems premature since we're not providing an
> > implementation for acpi_numa_get_nid() or selecting ACPI_NUMA, but OK.
> >
> Yes, will remove it. We can add as part NUMA enablement.
>
> > > +
> > > #else
> > > static inline int acpi_get_riscv_isa(struct acpi_table_header *table,
> > > unsigned int cpu, const char **isa)
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c
> > > index 26214ddefaa4..77630f8ed12b 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c
> > > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> > > * Copyright (C) 2017 SiFive
> > > */
> > >
> > > +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> > > #include <linux/arch_topology.h>
> > > #include <linux/module.h>
> > > #include <linux/init.h>
> > > @@ -70,6 +71,70 @@ void __init smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus)
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > > +static unsigned int cpu_count = 1;
> > > +
> > > +static int __init acpi_parse_rintc(union acpi_subtable_headers *header, const unsigned long end)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned long hart;
> > > + bool found_boot_cpu = false;
> >
> > I guess found_boot_cpu should be static?
> >
> Good catch!. Thanks!
>
> > > + struct acpi_madt_rintc *processor = (struct acpi_madt_rintc *)header;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Each RINTC structure in MADT will have a flag. If ACPI_MADT_ENABLED
> > > + * bit in the flag is not enabled, it means OS should not try to enable
> > > + * the cpu to which RINTC belongs.
> > > + */
> > > + if (!(processor->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED))
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > > + hart = processor->hart_id;
> > > + if (hart < 0)
> > > + return 0;
> >
> > A valid hart ID is anything up to INVALID_HARTID, right? Shouldn't we only
> > be checking for INVALID_HARTID here? And what does it mean to have an
> > invalid hart ID here? It's not an issue to error/warn about?
> >
> Yes, will check for INVALID_HARTID (though I am not really sure how it
> can be invalid). Will add a warning.
>
> > > + if (hart == cpuid_to_hartid_map(0)) {
> > > + BUG_ON(found_boot_cpu);
> >
> > Do we really want to BUG due to bad, but potentially bootable ACPI tables?
> > I'd BUG for things that can only happen when we break the code, but broken
> > ACPI tables might be something we want to complain loudly about and then
> > attempt to limp along.
> >
> Okay. I used same logic as in DT. It may be better to use BUG instead of
> debugging weird symptoms later, right?

Maybe? I guess it depends on how obvious the symptoms are, how much they
mess things up, and how easy it is to correct the ACPI tables. I'll leave
this one up to you :-)

Thanks,
drew