* [RFC PATCH] x86 / hibernate: Eliminate the redundant smp_ops.play_dead assignment
@ 2025-02-24 7:43 WangYuli
2025-02-26 17:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: WangYuli @ 2025-02-24 7:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rafael, pavel, tglx, mingo, bp, dave.hansen, x86, hpa
Cc: linux-pm, linux-kernel, zhanjun, niecheng1, chenlinxuan, WangYuli,
Huacai Chen, Wentao Guan
It's unnecessary to re-initialize smp_ops.play_dead to play_dead as
it naturally goes back to play_dead in the freshly booted kernel upon
device resume.
Suggested-by: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@loongson.cn>
Co-developed-by: Wentao Guan <guanwentao@uniontech.com>
Signed-off-by: Wentao Guan <guanwentao@uniontech.com>
Signed-off-by: WangYuli <wangyuli@uniontech.com>
---
arch/x86/power/cpu.c | 9 ++-------
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/power/cpu.c b/arch/x86/power/cpu.c
index 63230ff8cf4f..023cf9421467 100644
--- a/arch/x86/power/cpu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/power/cpu.c
@@ -297,9 +297,6 @@ static void __noreturn resume_play_dead(void)
int hibernate_resume_nonboot_cpu_disable(void)
{
- void (*play_dead)(void) = smp_ops.play_dead;
- int ret;
-
/*
* Ensure that MONITOR/MWAIT will not be used in the "play dead" loop
* during hibernate image restoration, because it is likely that the
@@ -316,13 +313,11 @@ int hibernate_resume_nonboot_cpu_disable(void)
* resume) sleep afterwards, and the resumed kernel will decide itself
* what to do with them.
*/
- ret = cpuhp_smt_enable();
+ int ret = cpuhp_smt_enable();
if (ret)
return ret;
smp_ops.play_dead = resume_play_dead;
- ret = freeze_secondary_cpus(0);
- smp_ops.play_dead = play_dead;
- return ret;
+ return freeze_secondary_cpus(0);
}
#endif
--
2.47.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] x86 / hibernate: Eliminate the redundant smp_ops.play_dead assignment
2025-02-24 7:43 [RFC PATCH] x86 / hibernate: Eliminate the redundant smp_ops.play_dead assignment WangYuli
@ 2025-02-26 17:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-02-26 18:07 ` Wentao Guan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2025-02-26 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: WangYuli
Cc: rafael, pavel, tglx, mingo, bp, dave.hansen, x86, hpa, linux-pm,
linux-kernel, zhanjun, niecheng1, chenlinxuan, Huacai Chen,
Wentao Guan
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 8:45 AM WangYuli <wangyuli@uniontech.com> wrote:
>
> It's unnecessary to re-initialize smp_ops.play_dead to play_dead as
> it naturally goes back to play_dead in the freshly booted kernel upon
> device resume.
Is it really?
And what if freeze_secondary_cpus() returns an error, for one example?
> Suggested-by: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@loongson.cn>
> Co-developed-by: Wentao Guan <guanwentao@uniontech.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wentao Guan <guanwentao@uniontech.com>
> Signed-off-by: WangYuli <wangyuli@uniontech.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/power/cpu.c | 9 ++-------
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/power/cpu.c b/arch/x86/power/cpu.c
> index 63230ff8cf4f..023cf9421467 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/power/cpu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/power/cpu.c
> @@ -297,9 +297,6 @@ static void __noreturn resume_play_dead(void)
>
> int hibernate_resume_nonboot_cpu_disable(void)
> {
> - void (*play_dead)(void) = smp_ops.play_dead;
> - int ret;
> -
> /*
> * Ensure that MONITOR/MWAIT will not be used in the "play dead" loop
> * during hibernate image restoration, because it is likely that the
> @@ -316,13 +313,11 @@ int hibernate_resume_nonboot_cpu_disable(void)
> * resume) sleep afterwards, and the resumed kernel will decide itself
> * what to do with them.
> */
> - ret = cpuhp_smt_enable();
> + int ret = cpuhp_smt_enable();
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> smp_ops.play_dead = resume_play_dead;
> - ret = freeze_secondary_cpus(0);
> - smp_ops.play_dead = play_dead;
> - return ret;
> + return freeze_secondary_cpus(0);
> }
> #endif
>
> --
> 2.47.2
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] x86 / hibernate: Eliminate the redundant smp_ops.play_dead assignment
2025-02-26 17:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2025-02-26 18:07 ` Wentao Guan
2025-02-26 18:18 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Wentao Guan @ 2025-02-26 18:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki, 王昱力
Cc: rafael, pavel, tglx, mingo, bp, dave.hansen, x86, hpa, linux-pm,
linux-kernel, 占俊, 聂诚,
陈麟轩, Huacai Chen
Hello,
Thanks for your reply.
In my opinion, the only logic different before the patch is delete smp_ops.play_dead
save and restore, as the comment "the resumed kernel will decide itself" and same
logic as which in arch/arm64/kernel/hibernate.c, the ok path will work as expect.
When discussing the error path and ret value that we not restore play_dead,
I will try to analyze the difference between native_play_dead and resume_play_dead,
and sev_es_play_dead [the all possiable three value], and I see some mwait and hlt
way difference.[maybe it happens as disable the cpu failed and goes to Enable_cpus
path in func:resume_target_kernel in hibernate.c? ] Is that it desgin to do and we can
move it to a common place in hibernate.c and left some comments ?
BRs
Wentao Guan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] x86 / hibernate: Eliminate the redundant smp_ops.play_dead assignment
2025-02-26 18:07 ` Wentao Guan
@ 2025-02-26 18:18 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2025-02-26 18:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wentao Guan
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, 王昱力, pavel, tglx, mingo,
bp, dave.hansen, x86, hpa, linux-pm, linux-kernel,
占俊, 聂诚, 陈麟轩,
Huacai Chen
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 7:08 PM Wentao Guan <guanwentao@uniontech.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> In my opinion, the only logic different before the patch is delete smp_ops.play_dead
> save and restore, as the comment "the resumed kernel will decide itself" and same
> logic as which in arch/arm64/kernel/hibernate.c, the ok path will work as expect.
Yes, the OK path will work as expected so long as smp_ops.play_dead is
switched over to resume_play_dead before calling
freeze_secondary_cpus().
> When discussing the error path and ret value that we not restore play_dead,
> I will try to analyze the difference between native_play_dead and resume_play_dead,
> and sev_es_play_dead [the all possiable three value], and I see some mwait and hlt
> way difference.[maybe it happens as disable the cpu failed and goes to Enable_cpus
> path in func:resume_target_kernel in hibernate.c? ] Is that it desgin to do and we can
> move it to a common place in hibernate.c and left some comments ?
Why not leave it as is?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-02-26 18:18 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-02-24 7:43 [RFC PATCH] x86 / hibernate: Eliminate the redundant smp_ops.play_dead assignment WangYuli
2025-02-26 17:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-02-26 18:07 ` Wentao Guan
2025-02-26 18:18 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox