From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi, cpuidle: Register with cpuidle even if cpu is onlined after boot (beyond maxcpus) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:42:14 +0200 Message-ID: <4FE99206.8060109@linaro.org> References: <4FDB549F.1020002@linaro.org> <201206251553.55867.trenn@suse.de> <4FE88BDE.1050406@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <201206261129.45591.trenn@suse.de> <4FE983E0.2050802@linaro.org> <4FE987BB.4020508@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FE987BB.4020508@linux.vnet.ibm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" Cc: Linux PM mailing list , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On 06/26/2012 11:58 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > On 06/26/2012 03:11 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 06/26/2012 11:29 AM, Thomas Renninger wrote: >>> On Monday, June 25, 2012 06:03:42 PM Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >>>> On 06/25/2012 07:23 PM, Thomas Renninger wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Monday, June 25, 2012 01:25:43 PM Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Daniel Lezcano noticed that after booting with maxcpus=3DX, if we = online the >>>>>> remaining cpus by writing: echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuY/o= nline, then >>>>>> for the newly onlined cpus, the cpuidle directory is not found und= er >>>>>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuY. >>>>>> >>>>>> Partly, the reason for this is that acpi restricts the initializat= ion to cpus >>>>>> within the maxcpus limit. (See commit 75cbfb9 "ACPI: Do not try to= set up acpi >>>>>> processor stuff on cores exceeding maxcpus=3D"). The maxcpus=3D ke= rnel parameter is >>>>>> used to restrict the number of cpus brought up during boot. That d= oesn't mean >>>>>> that we should hard restrict the bring up of the remaining cpus la= ter on. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, but IMO it exaclty does mean that (adding more general lists= for >>>>> further comments). >>>>> >>>>> If you can online more cores than maxcpus=3D via sysfs, this sounds= like a bug. >>>>> Not the other way around. >>>>> >>>>> Compare with Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt: >>>>> maxcpus=3D [SMP] Maximum number of processors that a= n SMP kernel >>>>> should make use of. maxcpus=3Dn : n >=3D 0= limits the >>>>> kernel to using 'n' processors. n=3D0 is a= special case, >>>>> it is equivalent to "nosmp", which also dis= ables >>>>> the IO APIC. >>>>> >>>>> Chances that you run into more problems are high. >>>> >>>> >>>> Right, I agree on that. So, IMHO, maxcpus=3DX doesn't mean that the = kernel must and >>>> should forbid any new cpus from coming online, but in the interest o= f avoiding >>>> problems/complications in some obscure paths, I guess it makes sense= to avoid >>>> onlining new cpus beyond maxcpus. >>> >>> Yep, for such reasons: >>> - That nobody realizes this to be useful and makes use of it in a = productive >>> environment >>> - If I see maxcpus=3DX in a bugreport's dmesg command line, >>> I want to be sure that's true. >>> - To enforce that things work as documented >>> >>> >>> Wow, after looking a bit into this I found (Documentation/cpu-hotplug= .txt): >>> >>> maxcpus=3Dn Restrict boot time cpus to n. Say if you have 4 cpus, = using >>> maxcpus=3D2 will only boot 2. You can choose to bring th= e >>> other cpus later online, read FAQ's for more info. >>> >>> Looks like someone already documented this (IMO broken) behavior. >>> I didn't find further info in the FAQs. >>> >>>> In any case, I was just trying to see why the simple removal of the = setup_max_cpus >>>> check in acpi_processor_add() wasn't enough to expose the cpuidle di= rectories under >>>> the new cpus.. and while debugging that, I came up with this patch. = I don't mind >>>> if this doesn't get picked up. >>> >>>> Right, the usecase of why somebody would like to online new cpus bey= ond maxcpus >>>> doesn't look all that solid anyway. So I am OK with leaving the code= as it is now. >>> >>> In the end this is a debug option, I expect everybody is aware of tha= t. >>> Yep, let's just leave it... >> >> In this case, let's remove the intel_idle_cpu_init stuff in >> acpi_cpu_soft_notify, no ? >> >=20 > Why? And how would that help? The intel_idle_cpu_init() call is essenti= al if intel_idle > driver is being used instead of acpi idle. AFAIU, this code is not called after onlining a cpu greater than maxcpus and Thomas thinks that system with cpu hotplug at runtime are not sold. The problem I see with this code is acpi and intel-idle are tied together now. I would like to break this dependency and use the notifier to handle the cpu hotplug directly in intel-idle. It is hard to test my patch as there is not such system and maxcpus is not correctly handled here. I can use your patch to test my patch but anyway ... I am just asking if that would make sense to remove this portion of code instead :) If we want to keep this code untouched, I can try my patch and maybe Thomas will agreed to test it also on a cpu-online-runtime-system if he has one. Thanks -- Daniel --=20 Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for A= RM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog