linux-pci.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Rui Wang <rui.y.wang@intel.com>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, rjw@rjwysocki.net, tony.luck@intel.com,
	bhelgaas@google.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/3] x86/ioapic: Support hot-removal of IOAPICs present during boot
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:09:59 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160616170958.GA7250@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1465711569-19406-1-git-send-email-rui.y.wang@intel.com>

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 02:06:09PM +0800, Rui Wang wrote:
> On Saturday, June 11, 2016 12:43 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 05:32:44PM +0800, Rui Wang wrote:
> > > @@ -1779,8 +1780,12 @@ void __init
> > > pci_assign_unassigned_resources(void)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct pci_bus *root_bus;
> > >
> > > -	list_for_each_entry(root_bus, &pci_root_buses, node)
> > > +	list_for_each_entry(root_bus, &pci_root_buses, node) {
> > >  		pci_assign_unassigned_root_bus_resources(root_bus);
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86
> > > +		acpi_ioapic_add(ACPI_HANDLE(root_bus->bridge));
> > > +#endif
> > 
> > This seems like a strange place to call acpi_ioapic_add().  Your object is to call
> > acpi_ioapic_add() during root bus enumeration.
> > 
> > I assume we *can't* call acpi_ioapic_add() from acpi_pci_root_add() at boot
> > time, for some reason you'll explain.  But is there a reason we have to call it
> > from pci_assign_unassigned_resources() (where it requires an ifdef) instead
> > of from pcibios_assign_resources(), which is already x86-specific?
> > 
> > In acpi_pci_root_add(), we have this:
> > 
> >   acpi_pci_root_add(...)
> >   {
> >     ...
> >     if (hotadd)
> >       acpi_ioapic_add(root);
> > 
> > So the obvious question is why don't we just remove the "if (hotadd)"
> > and call acpi_ioapic_add() always.
> > 
> > I'm sure the reason is some ordering problem, but we need a comment in
> > acpi_pci_root_add() about why the obvious solution doesn't work.
> 
> Yes it's an ording issue. acpi_ioapic_add() and also ioapic_insert_resources()
> have to be later than pci initialization in order to deal with IOAPICs mapped
> on a PCI BAR. There's a comment about this inside pcibios_resource_survey()
> above ioapic_insert_resources(). We can also add a comment inside
> acpi_pci_root_add(), though.
>
> And yes calling acpi_ioapic_add() in pcibios_assign_resources() doesn't require
> ifdef CONFIG_X86. But it'll require a loop to iterate through the root buses,
> and call acpi_ioapic_add() within the loop. pci_assign_unassigned_resources()
> already has that loop. Do you still prefer adding it to
> pcibios_assign_resources() ?

ioapic_insert_resources() is x86-specific, but I'm not sure why; it
seems like it does things that should be applicable to ia64 as well.

acpi_ioapic_add() is not x86-specific, and it is called from
acpi_pci_root_add() for the hot-add case.  You're adding an
x86-xpecific call in pci_assign_unassigned_resources().  Why should
the hot-add case be for all arches, but the boot-time case only for
x86?

  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-16 17:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-08  6:59 [PATCH V2 0/3] ioapic hot-removal bugs Rui Wang
2016-06-08  6:59 ` [PATCH V2 1/3] x86/ioapic: Support hot-removal of IOAPICs present during boot Rui Wang
2016-06-08  8:05   ` kbuild test robot
2016-06-08  9:32   ` [PATCH V3 " Rui Wang
2016-06-10 12:57     ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-06-10 13:56       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-06-10 16:43     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-06-12  6:06       ` Rui Wang
2016-06-16 17:09         ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2016-06-22  7:13           ` Rui Wang
2016-06-22 14:53             ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-06-24 15:18               ` Rui Wang
2016-06-22  7:40           ` [PATCH V4 " Rui Wang
2016-06-22 15:14             ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-06-23  5:11               ` 
2016-06-23 17:34                 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-06-24 15:30                   ` Rui Wang
2016-06-26  3:44                   ` [PATCH V5 " Rui Wang
2016-08-08 20:22                     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-08-09  3:23                       ` Rui Wang
2016-08-09 12:09                         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-06-08  6:59 ` [PATCH V2 2/3] x86/ioapic: Fix wrong pointers in ioapic_setup_resources() Rui Wang
2016-06-08  6:59 ` [PATCH V2 3/3] x86/ioapic: Simplify ioapic_setup_resources() Rui Wang

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=20160616170958.GA7250@localhost \
    --to=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=rui.y.wang@intel.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).