Re: [PATCH] cpuhp: make target_store() a nop when target == state

Valentin Schneider
2022-05-25T15:09:40Z

On 25/05/22 09:31, Phil Auld wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 10:48:31AM +0100 Valentin Schneider wrote:
>>
>> Yeah it would be neater to not even enter cpu_{up, down}(), but my paranoia
>> makes me think we need the comparison to happen with at least the
>> cpu_add_remove_lock held to make sure st->state isn't moving under our
>> feet, otherwise we may still end up with target == state in _cpu_down() and
>> hit the bug you're describing.
>>
>
> This is what I was originally doing before I tried to "optimize" it:
>
> if (st->state < target)
> ret = cpu_up(dev->id, target);
> else if (st->state > target)
> ret = cpu_down(dev->id, target);
>
> This does the check under the lock and just falls through if state==target.
> I think I'll go back to that version.
>
> I also noticed while testing that the boot cpu does not get its target set.
> It's got state 233 but target 0. So reading that out and writing it back
> on offlines cpu0. I'll try to find where that is not getting set.
>

If I had to guess I'd say it's because the boot CPU doesn't go through the
regular hotplug machinery and sets its state straight to CPUHP_ONLINE

/me digs

Maybe around this?

void __init boot_cpu_hotplug_init(void)
{
this_cpu_write(cpuhp_state.booted_once, true);
this_cpu_write(cpuhp_state.state, CPUHP_ONLINE);
}