From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: kgene.kim@samsung.com (Kukjin Kim)
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 18:49:19 +0900
Subject: [patch] ARM: smpboot: Enable interrupts after marking CPU
	online/active
References: <20110908215314.829452535@linutronix.de>
	<CADGdYn6V_eQJZ4=irMbSS7XJj4MJVeALxcrWdD7o2bGs1sEJZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110913133258.GA6267@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<CAKfTPtCWuiOM5+sOwdh1FzXZb1EFT__tVEpRPY5suGOxpYTdQQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110913175312.GB6267@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<20110923084001.GP17169@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Message-ID: <01d501cc84d6$62720890$275619b0$%kim@samsung.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Kukjin Kim wrote:
> 
> Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 06:53:12PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> > > So, we must have the setting of CPU online _after_ we've setup the
> > > scheduler domain information etc - so the following is a strict
> > > ordering:
> > >
> > > 1. calibrate_delay()
> > > 2. smp_store_cpu_info()
> > > 3. set_cpu_online()
> > >
> > > Now, the question is do we need interrupts enabled to setup timers
> > > via percpu_timer_setup() and calibrate delay.  Can we move enabling
> > > interrupts after smp_store_cpu_info().  IOW, instead of moving the
> > > setting of cpu online before all this, can we move
notify_cpu_starting()
> > > and the enabling of _both_ interrupts after smp_store_cpu_info()...
> > > No idea at the moment.
> >
> > And to make things worse... 4bd0fe1c78623062263cf5ae875fd484c5b8256d
> > has appeared in mainline today.
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c b/arch/arm/mach-
> exynos4/platsmp.c
> > index 7c2282c..df6ef1b 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c
> > @@ -106,6 +106,8 @@ void __cpuinit platform_secondary_init(unsigned int
cpu)
> >          */
> >         spin_lock(&boot_lock);
> >         spin_unlock(&boot_lock);
> > +
> > +       set_cpu_online(cpu, true);
> >  }
> >
> >  int __cpuinit boot_secondary(unsigned int cpu, struct task_struct
*idle)
> >
> > I think some work needs to be done to eliminate some of the dependencies
> > in this code so that we can have a *sane* order for bringup of secondary
> > CPUs.
> >
> Hi Russell,
> 
> Oops, as you said, it seems not proper place, platform_secondary_init() to
make
> secondary CPU online so I will submit its revert patch.
> 
> But as Amit said, current EXYNOS4 SoCs which are using SPI for local
timers has
> problem that the irq_set_affinity() method is called in
percpu_timer_setup() before
> CPU1 becomes online with the commit
> 5dfc54e087c15f823ee9b6541d2f0f314e69cbed ("ARM: GIC: avoid routing
> interrupts to offline CPUs"). So I will check again.
> 
> If you have any ideas, please kindly let me know.
> 
Hi Russell,

Hmm...I have no idea :(

I think, basically, if SPIs in GIC are used in local timer, the routing
interrupt like calling irq_set_affinity() to offline CPUs should be
available when boot time before calling set_cpu_online() because as you know
the local_timer_setup() which includes setup interrupt is called in
percpu_timer_setup() now...

Is there any way to get the flags of struct irqaction from struct irq_data
in gic_set_affinity()? Or?

> > I'm just going to sit on the fence and watch what platform people do
> > during the next merge window when the support for the topological
> > scheduler goes in.
> 

Thanks.

Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.