From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752989AbbLPLgd (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 16 Dec 2015 06:36:33 -0500
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:54889 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752036AbbLPLgc (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 16 Dec 2015 06:36:32 -0500
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 11:36:17 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: "Suzuki K. Poulose" <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        marc.zyngier@arm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 4/8] arm64: Handle early CPU boot failures
Message-ID: <20151216113617.GC6412@leverpostej>
References: <1449655039-22022-1-git-send-email-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
 <1449655039-22022-5-git-send-email-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
 <20151215115518.GE9452@arm.com>
 <56713F76.8080907@arm.com>
 <20151216112914.GF4308@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151216112914.GF4308@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:29:15AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:39:50AM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> > On 15/12/15 11:55, Will Deacon wrote:
> > >On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 09:57:15AM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> > 
> > >>  /*
> > >>   * Initial data for bringing up a secondary CPU.
> > >>+ * @stack  - sp for the secondary CPU
> > >>+ * @status - Result passed back from the secondary CPU to
> > >>+ *           indicate failure.
> > >>   */
> > >>  struct secondary_data {
> > >>  	void *stack;
> > >>-};
> > >>+	unsigned long status;
> > >>+} ____cacheline_aligned;
> > >
> > >Why is this necessary?
> > 
> > That was based on a suggestion from Mark Rutland here:
> > 
> >   https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/1/580
> 
> That thread is talking about the CWG, which is not the same thing as
> ____cacheline_aligned. Given that the architectural maximum for the CWG
> is 2K, we can probably get away with allocating the status field amongst
> the head.S text instead (which we know will be clean).
> 
> Since SMP boot is serialised, that should be sufficient, right?

Assuming you mean in .head.text (rather than .text), that should work
given that we don't currently free .head.text.

Mark.