From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B866EC33CB1 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 11:43:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E0D12073A for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 11:43:54 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6E0D12073A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47yQT14J9bzDqSD for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:43:49 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=arm.com (client-ip=217.140.110.172; helo=foss.arm.com; envelope-from=sudeep.holla@arm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47yQQM0dbXzDqRM for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:41:25 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1E1931B; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 03:41:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from bogus (e103737-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.197.49]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2ABE23F6C4; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 03:41:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 11:41:12 +0000 From: Sudeep Holla To: Hsin-Yi Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] reboot: support offline CPUs before reboot Message-ID: <20200115114112.GA3663@bogus> References: <20200115063410.131692-1-hsinyi@chromium.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200115063410.131692-1-hsinyi@chromium.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Mark Rutland , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Heiko Carstens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Guenter Roeck , Will Deacon , Ingo Molnar , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-csky@vger.kernel.org, Aaro Koskinen , Fenghua Yu , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Sudeep Holla , Stephen Boyd , Josh Poimboeuf , Thomas Gleixner , Pavankumar Kondeti , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, James Morse , Jiri Kosina , Vitaly Kuznetsov , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 02:34:10PM +0800, Hsin-Yi Wang wrote: > Currently system reboots uses architecture specific codes (smp_send_stop) > to offline non reboot CPUs. Most architecture's implementation is looping > through all non reboot online CPUs and call ipi function to each of them. Some > architecture like arm64, arm, and x86... would set offline masks to cpu without > really offline them. This causes some race condition and kernel warning comes > out sometimes when system reboots. > > This patch adds a config ARCH_OFFLINE_CPUS_ON_REBOOT, which would offline cpus in > migrate_to_reboot_cpu(). If non reboot cpus are all offlined here, the loop for > checking online cpus would be an empty loop. If architecture don't enable this > config, or some cpus somehow fails to offline, it would fallback to ipi > function. > What's the timing impact on systems with large number of CPUs(say 256 or more) ? I remember we added some change to reduce the wait times for offlining CPUs in system suspend path on arm64, still not negligible. -- Regards, Sudeep