From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Pengjie Zhang <zhangpengjie2@huawei.com>
Cc: will@kernel.org, maz@kernel.org, timothy.hayes@arm.com,
lpieralisi@kernel.org, mrigendra.chaubey@gmail.com,
arnd@arndb.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zhanjie9@hisilicon.com,
zhenglifeng1@huawei.com, lihuisong@huawei.com,
yubowen8@huawei.com, linhongye@h-partners.com,
linuxarm@huawei.com, wangzhi12@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: smp: Do not mark secondary CPUs possible under nosmp
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2026 14:20:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ae9iqdt_qdJRjVZs@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260423134654.4178271-1-zhangpengjie2@huawei.com>
On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 09:46:54PM +0800, Pengjie Zhang wrote:
> Under nosmp (maxcpus=0), arm64 never brings up secondary CPUs.
>
> However, arm64 still enumerates firmware-described CPUs during SMP
> initialization, which can leave secondary CPUs visible to
> for_each_possible_cpu() users even though they never reach the
> bringup path in this configuration.
>
> This is not just a cosmetic mask mismatch: code iterating over
> possible CPUs may observe secondary CPU per-CPU state that is never
> fully initialized under nosmp.
I'm fine with the patch in principle but I fail to see why it is not
mostly cosmetic. If we have possible & !present CPUs (there's another
thread around cpuhp_smt_enable() to allow this combination on arm64),
get_cpu_device() would return NULL and the core code is supposed to
handle this. What other per-CPU state should be initialised for a
possible CPU but it is not without this patch?
--
Catalin
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-27 13:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-23 13:46 [PATCH v2] arm64: smp: Do not mark secondary CPUs possible under nosmp Pengjie Zhang
2026-04-27 13:20 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
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=ae9iqdt_qdJRjVZs@arm.com \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=lihuisong@huawei.com \
--cc=linhongye@h-partners.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
--cc=lpieralisi@kernel.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=mrigendra.chaubey@gmail.com \
--cc=timothy.hayes@arm.com \
--cc=wangzhi12@huawei.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yubowen8@huawei.com \
--cc=zhangpengjie2@huawei.com \
--cc=zhanjie9@hisilicon.com \
--cc=zhenglifeng1@huawei.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