From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [patch V2 00/24] cpu/hotplug: Convert get_online_cpus() to a percpu_rwsem
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:57:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170427095744.GB31337@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170427082719.3wyru4bk67kdmflb@linutronix.de>
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:27:20AM +0200, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-04-26 11:32:36 [+0100], Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > So we could end up calling static_branch_enable_cpuslocked()
> > > without actually holding the lock. Should we do a cpu_hotplug_begin/done in
> > > setup_cpu_feature_capabilities ? I agree it doesn't look that nice. Thoughts ?
> >
> > I agree that's hideous, but it looks like the only choice given the
> > hotplug rwsem cahnges. :/
>
> would work for you to provide a locked and unlocked version?
Maybe. Today we have:
// rwsem unlocked
start_kernel()
->smp_prepare_boot_cpu()
-->update_cpu_errata_workarounds()
--->update_cpu_capabilities()
// rwsem locked (by other CPU)
secondary_start_kernel()
->check_local_cpu_capabilities()
-->update_cpu_errata_workarounds()
--->update_cpu_capabilities()
With the common chain:
update_cpu_capabilities()
->cpus_set_cap()
-->static_branch_enable()
... so we could add a update_cpu_capabilities{,_cpuslocked}(), and say
that cpus_set_cap() expects the hotplug rswem to be locked, as per the
below diff.
Thoughts?
Mark.
---->8----
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
index f31c48d..7341579 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
@@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static inline void cpus_set_cap(unsigned int num)
num, ARM64_NCAPS);
} else {
__set_bit(num, cpu_hwcaps);
- static_branch_enable(&cpu_hwcap_keys[num]);
+ static_branch_enable_cpuslocked(&cpu_hwcap_keys[num]);
}
}
@@ -217,8 +217,22 @@ static inline bool id_aa64pfr0_32bit_el0(u64 pfr0)
void __init setup_cpu_features(void);
-void update_cpu_capabilities(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps,
- const char *info);
+void __update_cpu_capabilities(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps,
+ const char *info, bool cpuslocked);
+static inline void
+update_cpu_capabilities(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps,
+ const char *info)
+{
+ __update_cpu_capabilities(caps, info, false);
+}
+
+static inline void
+update_cpu_capabilities_cpuslocked(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps,
+ const char *info)
+{
+ __update_cpu_capabilities(caps, info, true);
+}
+
void enable_cpu_capabilities(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps);
void check_local_cpu_capabilities(void);
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
index abda8e8..ae8ddc1 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
@@ -956,8 +956,8 @@ static void __init setup_elf_hwcaps(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *hwcaps)
cap_set_elf_hwcap(hwcaps);
}
-void update_cpu_capabilities(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps,
- const char *info)
+void __update_cpu_capabilities(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps,
+ const char *info, bool cpuslocked)
{
for (; caps->matches; caps++) {
if (!caps->matches(caps, caps->def_scope))
@@ -965,7 +965,14 @@ void update_cpu_capabilities(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps,
if (!cpus_have_cap(caps->capability) && caps->desc)
pr_info("%s %s\n", info, caps->desc);
- cpus_set_cap(caps->capability);
+
+ if (cpuslocked) {
+ cpus_set_cap(caps->capability);
+ } else {
+ get_online_cpus();
+ cpus_set_cap(caps->capability);
+ put_online_cpus();
+ }
}
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-27 9:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20170418170442.665445272@linutronix.de>
2017-04-18 17:04 ` [patch V2 08/24] hwtracing/coresight-etm3x: Use cpuhp_setup_state_nocalls_cpuslocked() Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-20 15:14 ` Mathieu Poirier
2017-04-20 15:32 ` Mathieu Poirier
2017-04-18 17:04 ` [patch V2 09/24] hwtracing/coresight-etm4x: " Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-18 17:04 ` [patch V2 11/24] ARM/hw_breakpoint: Use cpuhp_setup_state_cpuslocked() Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-19 17:54 ` Mark Rutland
2017-04-19 18:20 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-25 16:10 ` [patch V2 00/24] cpu/hotplug: Convert get_online_cpus() to a percpu_rwsem Mark Rutland
2017-04-25 17:28 ` Sebastian Siewior
2017-04-26 8:59 ` Mark Rutland
2017-04-26 9:40 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2017-04-26 10:32 ` Mark Rutland
2017-04-27 8:27 ` Sebastian Siewior
2017-04-27 9:57 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2017-04-27 10:01 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-27 12:30 ` Mark Rutland
2017-04-27 15:48 ` [PATCH] arm64: cpufeature: use static_branch_enable_cpuslocked() (was: Re: [patch V2 00/24] cpu/hotplug: Convert get_online_cpus() to a percpu_rwsem) Mark Rutland
2017-04-27 16:35 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2017-04-27 17:03 ` [PATCH] arm64: cpufeature: use static_branch_enable_cpuslocked() Suzuki K Poulose
2017-04-27 17:17 ` Mark Rutland
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=20170427095744.GB31337@leverpostej \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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