Re: [PATCH RFC v3 17/21] ACPI: add support to register CPUs based on the _STA enabled bit

Jonathan Cameron
2024-01-23T10:26:07Z

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 14:53:20 +0000
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 13:03:32 +0000
> "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 12:50:38PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > > From: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
> > >
> > > acpi_processor_get_info() registers all present CPUs. Registering a
> > > CPU is what creates the sysfs entries and triggers the udev
> > > notifications.
> > >
> > > arm64 virtual machines that support 'virtual cpu hotplug' use the
> > > enabled bit to indicate whether the CPU can be brought online, as
> > > the existing ACPI tables require all hardware to be described and
> > > present.
> > >
> > > If firmware describes a CPU as present, but disabled, skip the
> > > registration. Such CPUs are present, but can't be brought online for
> > > whatever reason. (e.g. firmware/hypervisor policy).
> > >
> > > Once firmware sets the enabled bit, the CPU can be registered and
> > > brought online by user-space. Online CPUs, or CPUs that are missing
> > > an _STA method must always be registered.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > @@ -526,6 +552,9 @@ static void acpi_processor_post_eject(struct acpi_device *device)
> > > acpi_processor_make_not_present(device);
> > > return;
> > > }
> > > +
> > > + if (cpu_present(pr->id) && !(sta & ACPI_STA_DEVICE_ENABLED))
> > > + arch_unregister_cpu(pr->id);
> >
> > This change isn't described in the commit log, but seems to be the cause
> > of the build error identified by the kernel build bot that is fixed
> > later in this series. I'm wondering whether this should be in a
> > different patch, maybe "ACPI: Check _STA present bit before making CPUs
> > not present" ?
>
> Would seem a bit odd to call arch_unregister_cpu() way before the code
> is added to call the matching arch_registers_cpu()
>
> Mind you this eject doesn't just apply to those CPUs that are registered
> later I think, but instead to all. So we run into the spec hole that
> there is no way to identify initially 'enabled' CPUs that might be disabled
> later.
>
> >
> > Or maybe my brain isn't working properly (due to being Covid positive.)
> > Any thoughts, Jonathan?
>
> I'll go with a resounding 'not sure' on where this change belongs.
> I blame my non existent start of the year hangover.
> Hope you have recovered!

Looking again, I think you were right, move it to that earlier patch.

J
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel