acpi_idle and max_cpus
Subsystems (3)
Hi all,
I have a dual core Intel T9500.
I boot the cpu with the acpi_idle driver and intel_idle enabled in the config.
The kernel is booted with maxcpus=1.
After the system has boot, I put cpu1 online via sysfs.
But I don't see any 'cpuidle' directory in the cpu's sysfs entry:
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpuidle (?)
When I look at the code I see the notifier is present for hotplug in processor_driver.c and the cpuidle intel init routine should be called there.
I am wondering is it a bug or an expected behavior ?
Thanks
-- Daniel
Signature · 10 lines
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Quoted 14 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Hi all,
I have a dual core Intel T9500.
I boot the cpu with the
acpi_idledriver andintel_idleenabled in the config.The kernel is booted with maxcpus=1.
After the system has boot, I put cpu1 online via sysfs.
But I don't see any 'cpuidle' directory in the cpu's sysfs entry:
Quoted 7 lines
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpuidle(?)When I look at the code I see the notifier is present for hotplug in
processor_driver.cand the cpuidle intel init routine should be called there.I am wondering is it a bug or an expected behavior ?
Any thoughts on that ?
Thanks
-- Daniel
Signature · 10 lines
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Daniel,
Quoted 13 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Quoted 12 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Hi all,
I have a dual core Intel T9500.
I boot the cpu with the
acpi_idledriver andintel_idleenabled in the config.The kernel is booted with maxcpus=1.
After the system has boot, I put cpu1 online via sysfs.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
But I don't see any 'cpuidle' directory in the cpu's sysfs entry:
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpuidle(?)When I look at the code I see the notifier is present for hotplug in
processor_driver.cand the cpuidle intel init routine should be called there.
Yes, we have a hotplug notifier.
Commit 99b72508 by Thomas Renninger fixed this issue.
Please let me know which kernel version you are running and what is idle driver registered ?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
I am wondering is it a bug or an expected behavior ?
Any thoughts on that ?
Thanks
-- Daniel
Cheers
Deepthi
Quoted 27 lines · Deepthi Dharwar
Hi Daniel,
Quoted 13 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Quoted 12 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Hi all,
I have a dual core Intel T9500.
I boot the cpu with the
acpi_idledriver andintel_idleenabled in the config.The kernel is booted with maxcpus=1.
After the system has boot, I put cpu1 online via sysfs.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
But I don't see any 'cpuidle' directory in the cpu's sysfs entry:
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpuidle(?)When I look at the code I see the notifier is present for hotplug in
processor_driver.cand the cpuidle intel init routine should be called there.
Quoted 5 lines
Yes, we have a hotplug notifier.
Commit99b72508by Thomas Renninger fixed this issue.Please let me know which kernel version you are running and what is idle driver registered ?
The kernel version is 3.5.0-rc1
The registered driver is acpi_idle (with intel_idle if I am not wrong).
Thomas's patch is in this version.
Maybe I am wrong but I think the patch is not correct because:
static int __cpuinit acpi_processor_add(struct acpi_device *device) {
...
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP if (pr->id >= setup_max_cpus && pr->id != 0) return 0;
#endif
...
per_cpu(processors, pr->id) = pr;
...
}
With max_cpus=1 we exit before setting up 'pr'.
So the condition in:
static int acpi_cpu_soft_notify(...)
{
unsigned int cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu;
struct acpi_processor *pr = per_cpu(processors, cpu);
if (action == CPU_ONLINE && pr) {...
}
Is always false because pr == NULL
I did the change but I don't still see the 'cpuidle' directory appearing, I suspect also pr->flags.need_hotplug_init is not correctly initialized but I did not investigate more.
Quoted 13 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
I am wondering is it a bug or an expected behavior ?
Any thoughts on that ?
Thanks
-- DanielCheers
Deepthi
Signature · 10 lines
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Quoted 70 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Quoted 27 lines · Deepthi Dharwar
Hi Daniel,
Quoted 13 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Quoted 12 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Hi all,
I have a dual core Intel T9500.
I boot the cpu with the
acpi_idledriver andintel_idleenabled in the config.The kernel is booted with maxcpus=1.
After the system has boot, I put cpu1 online via sysfs.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
But I don't see any 'cpuidle' directory in the cpu's sysfs entry:
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpuidle(?)When I look at the code I see the notifier is present for hotplug in
processor_driver.cand the cpuidle intel init routine should be called there.Quoted 5 lines
Yes, we have a hotplug notifier.
Commit99b72508by Thomas Renninger fixed this issue.Please let me know which kernel version you are running and what is idle driver registered ?
The kernel version is 3.5.0-rc1
The registered driver isacpi_idle(withintel_idleif I am not wrong).Thomas's patch is in this version.
Maybe I am wrong but I think the patch is not correct because:
static int
__cpuinitacpi_processor_add(struct acpi_device *device){...
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP if (pr->id >= setup_max_cpus && pr->id != 0) return 0;#endif
...
per_cpu(processors, pr->id) = pr;...
}With max_cpus=1 we exit before setting up 'pr'.
So the condition in:
static int
acpi_cpu_soft_notify(...)
{unsigned int cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu; struct acpi_processor *pr = per_cpu(processors, cpu); if (action == CPU_ONLINE && pr) {
Quoted 9 lines
...
}Is always false because pr == NULL
I did the change but I don't still see the 'cpuidle' directory appearing, I suspect also
pr->flags.need_hotplug_initis not correctly initialized but I did not investigate more.
Well looks like variable maxcpus holds the key here.
When I am booting the system, say with 2 out of 4 available cpus, set via maxcpus variable with intel_idle or acpi_idle and onlining the other 2 cpus later via sysfs, I dont see cpufreq or cpuidle dir in the sysfs path.
# cd /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2 xxx:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2# ls crash_notes node0 online xxx:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2# echo 1 > online xxx:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2# ls cache crash_notes node0 online thermal_throttle topology
So looks like its designed that way for now.
So if maxcpus=X, X<Y where Y is no of available cpus. Enabling the Y-X cpus later after the boot via sysfs is not enabling cpuidle and cpufreq .
The question is, do we want to modify this behavior ?
Cheers,
Deepthi
Quoted 77 lines · Deepthi Dharwar
Quoted 75 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Quoted 27 lines · Deepthi Dharwar
Hi Daniel,
Quoted 13 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Quoted 12 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Hi all,
I have a dual core Intel T9500.
I boot the cpu with the
acpi_idledriver andintel_idleenabled in the config.The kernel is booted with maxcpus=1.
After the system has boot, I put cpu1 online via sysfs.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
But I don't see any 'cpuidle' directory in the cpu's sysfs entry:
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpuidle(?)When I look at the code I see the notifier is present for hotplug in
processor_driver.cand the cpuidle intel init routine should be called there.Quoted 5 lines
Yes, we have a hotplug notifier.
Commit99b72508by Thomas Renninger fixed this issue.Please let me know which kernel version you are running and what is idle driver registered ?
The kernel version is 3.5.0-rc1
The registered driver isacpi_idle(withintel_idleif I am not wrong).Thomas's patch is in this version.
Maybe I am wrong but I think the patch is not correct because:
static int
__cpuinitacpi_processor_add(struct acpi_device *device){...
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP if (pr->id >= setup_max_cpus && pr->id != 0) return 0;#endif
...
per_cpu(processors, pr->id) = pr;...
}With max_cpus=1 we exit before setting up 'pr'.
So the condition in:
static int
acpi_cpu_soft_notify(...)
{unsigned int cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu; struct acpi_processor *pr = per_cpu(processors, cpu); if (action == CPU_ONLINE && pr) {...
}Is always false because pr == NULL
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
I did the change but I don't still see the 'cpuidle' directory appearing, I suspect also
pr->flags.need_hotplug_initis not correctly initialized but I did not investigate more.Well looks like variable maxcpus holds the key here.
Whose equivalent is setup_max_cpus inside the kernel, as Daniel mentioned.
Quoted 5 lines
When I am booting the system, say with 2 out of 4 available cpus, set via maxcpus variable with
intel_idleoracpi_idleand onlining the other 2 cpus later via sysfs, I dont see cpufreq or cpuidle dir in the sysfs path.
Quoted 8 lines
# cd /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2 xxx:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2# ls crash_notes node0 online xxx:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2# echo 1 > online xxx:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2# ls cache crash_notes node0 online thermal_throttle topologySo looks like its designed that way for now.
I don't think so. Looks more like a bug than a design ;-)
Quoted 6 lines
So if maxcpus=X, X<Y where Y is no of available cpus. Enabling the Y-X cpus later after the boot via sysfs is not enabling cpuidle and cpufreq .
The question is, do we want to modify this behavior ?
Yes we do, and that's Daniel's pain point as well. I don't think there is any good reason why the cpuidle directory must _not_ be exported for cpus that are onlined later.
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
Quoted 112 lines · Srivatsa S. Bhat
Quoted 77 lines · Deepthi Dharwar
Quoted 75 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Quoted 27 lines · Deepthi Dharwar
Hi Daniel,
Quoted 13 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Quoted 12 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Hi all,
I have a dual core Intel T9500.
I boot the cpu with the
acpi_idledriver andintel_idleenabled in the config.The kernel is booted with maxcpus=1.
After the system has boot, I put cpu1 online via sysfs.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
But I don't see any 'cpuidle' directory in the cpu's sysfs entry:
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpuidle(?)When I look at the code I see the notifier is present for hotplug in
processor_driver.cand the cpuidle intel init routine should be called there.Quoted 5 lines
Yes, we have a hotplug notifier.
Commit99b72508by Thomas Renninger fixed this issue.Please let me know which kernel version you are running and what is idle driver registered ?
The kernel version is 3.5.0-rc1
The registered driver isacpi_idle(withintel_idleif I am not wrong).Thomas's patch is in this version.
Maybe I am wrong but I think the patch is not correct because:
static int
__cpuinitacpi_processor_add(struct acpi_device *device){...
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP if (pr->id >= setup_max_cpus && pr->id != 0) return 0;#endif
...
per_cpu(processors, pr->id) = pr;...
}With max_cpus=1 we exit before setting up 'pr'.
So the condition in:
static int
acpi_cpu_soft_notify(...)
{unsigned int cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu; struct acpi_processor *pr = per_cpu(processors, cpu); if (action == CPU_ONLINE && pr) {...
}Is always false because pr == NULL
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
I did the change but I don't still see the 'cpuidle' directory appearing, I suspect also
pr->flags.need_hotplug_initis not correctly initialized but I did not investigate more.Well looks like variable maxcpus holds the key here.
Whose equivalent is
setup_max_cpusinside the kernel, as Daniel mentioned.Quoted 5 lines
When I am booting the system, say with 2 out of 4 available cpus, set via maxcpus variable with
intel_idleoracpi_idleand onlining the other 2 cpus later via sysfs, I dont see cpufreq or cpuidle dir in the sysfs path.Quoted 8 lines
# cd /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2 xxx:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2# ls crash_notes node0 online xxx:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2# echo 1 > online xxx:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2# ls cache crash_notes node0 online thermal_throttle topologySo looks like its designed that way for now.
I don't think so. Looks more like a bug than a design ;-)
Quoted 4 lines
So if maxcpus=X, X<Y where Y is no of available cpus. Enabling the Y-X cpus later after the boot via sysfs is not enabling cpuidle and cpufreq .
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
The question is, do we want to modify this behavior ?
Yes we do, and that's Daniel's pain point as well. I don't think there is any good reason why the cpuidle directory must _not_ be exported for cpus that are onlined later.
Yes and if I refer to the code, it is supposed to do that.
I added Thomas in Cc.
Thanks
-- Daniel
Signature · 10 lines
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Quoted 117 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Quoted 116 lines · Srivatsa S. Bhat
Quoted 77 lines · Deepthi Dharwar
Quoted 75 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Quoted 27 lines · Deepthi Dharwar
Hi Daniel,
Quoted 13 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Quoted 12 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Hi all,
I have a dual core Intel T9500.
I boot the cpu with the
acpi_idledriver andintel_idleenabled in the config.The kernel is booted with maxcpus=1.
After the system has boot, I put cpu1 online via sysfs.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
But I don't see any 'cpuidle' directory in the cpu's sysfs entry:
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpuidle(?)When I look at the code I see the notifier is present for hotplug in
processor_driver.cand the cpuidle intel init routine should be called there.Quoted 5 lines
Yes, we have a hotplug notifier.
Commit99b72508by Thomas Renninger fixed this issue.Please let me know which kernel version you are running and what is idle driver registered ?
The kernel version is 3.5.0-rc1
The registered driver isacpi_idle(withintel_idleif I am not wrong).Thomas's patch is in this version.
Maybe I am wrong but I think the patch is not correct because:
static int
__cpuinitacpi_processor_add(struct acpi_device *device){...
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP if (pr->id >= setup_max_cpus && pr->id != 0) return 0;#endif
...
per_cpu(processors, pr->id) = pr;...
}With max_cpus=1 we exit before setting up 'pr'.
So the condition in:
static int
acpi_cpu_soft_notify(...)
{unsigned int cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu; struct acpi_processor *pr = per_cpu(processors, cpu); if (action == CPU_ONLINE && pr) {...
}Is always false because pr == NULL
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
I did the change but I don't still see the 'cpuidle' directory appearing, I suspect also
pr->flags.need_hotplug_initis not correctly initialized but I did not investigate more.Well looks like variable maxcpus holds the key here.
Whose equivalent is
setup_max_cpusinside the kernel, as Daniel mentioned.Quoted 5 lines
When I am booting the system, say with 2 out of 4 available cpus, set via maxcpus variable with
intel_idleoracpi_idleand onlining the other 2 cpus later via sysfs, I dont see cpufreq or cpuidle dir in the sysfs path.Quoted 8 lines
# cd /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2 xxx:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2# ls crash_notes node0 online xxx:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2# echo 1 > online xxx:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2# ls cache crash_notes node0 online thermal_throttle topologySo looks like its designed that way for now.
I don't think so. Looks more like a bug than a design ;-)
Quoted 6 lines
So if maxcpus=X, X<Y where Y is no of available cpus. Enabling the Y-X cpus later after the boot via sysfs is not enabling cpuidle and cpufreq .
The question is, do we want to modify this behavior ?
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Yes we do, and that's Daniel's pain point as well. I don't think there is any good reason why the cpuidle directory must _not_ be exported for cpus that are onlined later.
Yes and if I refer to the code, it is supposed to do that.
I added Thomas in Cc.
maxcpus=X is supposed to statically set the maximum allowed CPUs of the booted kernel to X.
It's not supposed to online cores exceeding X later.
This is similar to mem=4G, you won't be able to online memory beyond 4G later at runtime.
Strange that one can online cores beyond X later at runtime, this sounds like a bug. But maxcpus=X is a debugging variable mostly anyway.
The patch I sent some time ago was to fix CPU hotplug on systems where a real CPU got added at runtime (without maxcpus being involved). Not sure whether such systems got finally sold, afaik they are not.
Thomas
PATCH 1/1 acpi, cpuidle: Register with cpuidle even if cpu is onlined after boot (beyond maxcpus)
In reply to Daniel LezcanoDaniel Lezcano noticed that after booting with maxcpus=X, if we online the remaining cpus by writing: echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuY/online, then for the newly onlined cpus, the cpuidle directory is not found under /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuY.
Partly, the reason for this is that acpi restricts the initialization to cpus within the maxcpus limit. (See commit 75cbfb9 "ACPI: Do not try to set up acpi processor stuff on cores exceeding maxcpus="). The maxcpus= kernel parameter is used to restrict the number of cpus brought up during boot. That doesn't mean that we should hard restrict the bring up of the remaining cpus later on. So teach acpi to play nice with maxcpus= parameter, and perform the initialization for all present cpus, but defer their startup to the point when they are actually onlined later.
But that alone won't suffice as a fix, because there is one more thing that the present but !online cpus lack - the need_hotplug_init flag. The need_hotplug_init flag is set only for physically hotplugged cpus and not for cpus which were already present but not brought online during boot (due to the maxcpus= parameter). For cpus with this flag set, during the online operation, acpi_cpu_soft_notify() takes care of the registration with cpuidle. So, in order to allow the present but !online cpus to be onlined later with full features (by making use of acpi_cpu_soft_notify()), set their need_hotplug_init flag.
---
Daniel, this patch works for me. Does it work for you as well?
drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 16 +++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c +11 -5
@@ -551,11 +551,6 @@ static int __cpuinit acpi_processor_add(struct acpi_device *device)return 0 ; } -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP -if (pr->id >= setup_max_cpus && pr->id !=0 ) -return 0 ; -#endif -BUG_ON ((pr->id >= nr_cpu_ids) || (pr->id <0 ));/*
@@ -580,6 +575,17 @@ static int __cpuinit acpi_processor_add(struct acpi_device *device) goto err_clear_processor; } +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP +if (pr->id >= setup_max_cpus && pr->id !=0 ) { +/* +* Don't start cpus beyond maxcpus now. But allow them to +* to be brought online later. +*/ + pr->flags.need_hotplug_init =1 ; +return 0 ; + } +#endif +/* * Do not start hotplugged CPUs now, but when they * are onlined the first time
Re: [PATCH] acpi, cpuidle: Register with cpuidle even if cpu is onlined after boot (beyond maxcpus)
Quoted 11 lines · Srivatsa S. Bhat
Daniel Lezcano noticed that after booting with maxcpus=X, if we online the remaining cpus by writing: echo 1 >
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuY/online, then for the newly onlined cpus, the cpuidle directory is not found under/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuY.Partly, the reason for this is that acpi restricts the initialization to cpus within the maxcpus limit. (See commit 75cbfb9 "ACPI: Do not try to set up acpi processor stuff on cores exceeding maxcpus="). The maxcpus= kernel parameter is used to restrict the number of cpus brought up during boot. That doesn't mean that we should hard restrict the bring up of the remaining cpus later on.
Sorry, but IMO it exaclty does mean that (adding more general lists for further comments).
If you can online more cores than maxcpus= via sysfs, this sounds like a bug. Not the other way around.
Compare with Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt:
maxcpus= [SMP] Maximum number of processors that an SMP kernel
should make use of. maxcpus=n : n >= 0 limits the kernel to using 'n' processors. n=0 is a special case, it is equivalent to "nosmp", which also disables the IO APIC.
Chances that you run into more problems are high.
It would help if it is explained why at all this would be needed.
If there really is a valid use-case, possibly a bootcpus= param could get defined or above documentation is adjusted. But this would need thorough double checking, because I expect maxcpus=X was never intended to bring up more than X cores later via sysfs and I expect there are more places where things have to get ajusted.
Thomas
Quoted 62 lines
So
teach acpi to play nice with maxcpus= parameter, and perform the initialization for all present cpus, but defer their startup to the point when they are actually onlined later.But that alone won't suffice as a fix, because there is one more thing that the present but !online cpus lack - the
need_hotplug_initflag. Theneed_hotplug_initflag is set only for physically hotplugged cpus and not for cpus which were already present but not brought online during boot (due to the maxcpus= parameter). For cpus with this flag set, during the online operation,acpi_cpu_soft_notify()takes care of the registration with cpuidle. So, in order to allow the present but !online cpus to be onlined later with full features (by making use ofacpi_cpu_soft_notify()), set theirneed_hotplug_initflag.Reported-by Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Srivatsa S. Bhat <[email protected]>---
Daniel, this patch works for me. Does it work for you as well?
drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 16 +++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c +11
-5@@ -551,11 +551,6 @@ static int __cpuinit acpi_processor_add(struct acpi_device *device)return 0 ; } -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP -if (pr->id >= setup_max_cpus && pr->id !=0 ) -return 0 ; -#endif -BUG_ON ((pr->id >= nr_cpu_ids) || (pr->id <0 ));/* @@ -580,6 +575,17 @@ static int __cpuinit acpi_processor_add(struct acpi_device *device) goto err_clear_processor; } +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP +if (pr->id >= setup_max_cpus && pr->id !=0 ) { +/* +* Don't start cpus beyond maxcpus now. But allow them to +* to be brought online later. +*/ + pr->flags.need_hotplug_init =1 ; +return 0 ; + } +#endif +/* * Do not start hotplugged CPUs now, but when they * are onlined the first time
Re: [PATCH] acpi, cpuidle: Register with cpuidle even if cpu is onlined after boot (beyond maxcpus)
Quoted 19 lines · Thomas Renninger
Quoted 11 lines · Srivatsa S. Bhat
Daniel Lezcano noticed that after booting with maxcpus=X, if we online the remaining cpus by writing: echo 1 >
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuY/online, then for the newly onlined cpus, the cpuidle directory is not found under/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuY.Partly, the reason for this is that acpi restricts the initialization to cpus within the maxcpus limit. (See commit 75cbfb9 "ACPI: Do not try to set up acpi processor stuff on cores exceeding maxcpus="). The maxcpus= kernel parameter is used to restrict the number of cpus brought up during boot. That doesn't mean that we should hard restrict the bring up of the remaining cpus later on.
Sorry, but IMO it exaclty does mean that (adding more general lists for further comments).
If you can online more cores than maxcpus= via sysfs, this sounds like a bug. Not the other way around.
Quoted 8 lines
Compare with
Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt:
maxcpus= [SMP] Maximum number of processors that an SMP kernel
should make use of. maxcpus=n : n >= 0 limits the kernel to using 'n' processors. n=0 is a special case, it is equivalent to "nosmp", which also disables the IO APIC.Chances that you run into more problems are high.
Right, I agree on that. So, IMHO, maxcpus=X doesn't mean that the kernel must and should forbid any new cpus from coming online, but in the interest of avoiding problems/complications in some obscure paths, I guess it makes sense to avoid onlining new cpus beyond maxcpus.
In any case, I was just trying to see why the simple removal of the setup_max_cpus check in acpi_processor_add() wasn't enough to expose the cpuidle directories under the new cpus.. and while debugging that, I came up with this patch. I don't mind if this doesn't get picked up.
Quoted 2 lines
It would help if it is explained why at all this would be needed.
Right, the usecase of why somebody would like to online new cpus beyond maxcpus doesn't look all that solid anyway. So I am OK with leaving the code as it is now.
Quoted 6 lines
If there really is a valid use-case, possibly a bootcpus= param could get defined or above documentation is adjusted. But this would need thorough double checking, because I expect maxcpus=X was never intended to bring up more than X cores later via sysfs and I expect there are more places where things have to get ajusted.
Yep, that sounds reasonable.
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
Quoted 63 lines
Quoted 63 lines
So
teach acpi to play nice with maxcpus= parameter, and perform the initialization for all present cpus, but defer their startup to the point when they are actually onlined later.But that alone won't suffice as a fix, because there is one more thing that the present but !online cpus lack - the
need_hotplug_initflag. Theneed_hotplug_initflag is set only for physically hotplugged cpus and not for cpus which were already present but not brought online during boot (due to the maxcpus= parameter). For cpus with this flag set, during the online operation,acpi_cpu_soft_notify()takes care of the registration with cpuidle. So, in order to allow the present but !online cpus to be onlined later with full features (by making use ofacpi_cpu_soft_notify()), set theirneed_hotplug_initflag.Reported-by Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Srivatsa S. Bhat <[email protected]>---
Daniel, this patch works for me. Does it work for you as well?
drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 16 +++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c +11
-5@@ -551,11 +551,6 @@ static int __cpuinit acpi_processor_add(struct acpi_device *device)return 0 ; } -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP -if (pr->id >= setup_max_cpus && pr->id !=0 ) -return 0 ; -#endif -BUG_ON ((pr->id >= nr_cpu_ids) || (pr->id <0 ));/* @@ -580,6 +575,17 @@ static int __cpuinit acpi_processor_add(struct acpi_device *device) goto err_clear_processor; } +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP +if (pr->id >= setup_max_cpus && pr->id !=0 ) { +/* +* Don't start cpus beyond maxcpus now. But allow them to +* to be brought online later. +*/ + pr->flags.need_hotplug_init =1 ; +return 0 ; + } +#endif +/* * Do not start hotplugged CPUs now, but when they * are onlined the first time
Re: [PATCH] acpi, cpuidle: Register with cpuidle even if cpu is onlined after boot (beyond maxcpus)
Quoted 28 lines · Srivatsa S. Bhat
Quoted 26 lines · Thomas Renninger
Quoted 11 lines · Srivatsa S. Bhat
Daniel Lezcano noticed that after booting with maxcpus=X, if we online the remaining cpus by writing: echo 1 >
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuY/online, then for the newly onlined cpus, the cpuidle directory is not found under/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuY.Partly, the reason for this is that acpi restricts the initialization to cpus within the maxcpus limit. (See commit 75cbfb9 "ACPI: Do not try to set up acpi processor stuff on cores exceeding maxcpus="). The maxcpus= kernel parameter is used to restrict the number of cpus brought up during boot. That doesn't mean that we should hard restrict the bring up of the remaining cpus later on.
Sorry, but IMO it exaclty does mean that (adding more general lists for further comments).
If you can online more cores than maxcpus= via sysfs, this sounds like a bug. Not the other way around.
Compare with
Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt:
maxcpus= [SMP] Maximum number of processors that an SMP kernel
should make use of. maxcpus=n : n >= 0 limits the kernel to using 'n' processors. n=0 is a special case, it is equivalent to "nosmp", which also disables the IO APIC.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
Chances that you run into more problems are high.
Right, I agree on that. So, IMHO, maxcpus=X doesn't mean that the kernel must and should forbid any new cpus from coming online, but in the interest of avoiding problems/complications in some obscure paths, I guess it makes sense to avoid onlining new cpus beyond maxcpus.
Yep, for such reasons:
- That nobody realizes this to be useful and makes use of it in a productive environment
- If I see maxcpus=X in a bugreport's dmesg command line,
I want to be sure that's true.
- To enforce that things work as documented
Wow, after looking a bit into this I found (Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt):
maxcpus=n Restrict boot time cpus to n. Say if you have 4 cpus, using
maxcpus=2 will only boot 2. You can choose to bring the other cpus later online, read FAQ's for more info.
Looks like someone already documented this (IMO broken) behavior. I didn't find further info in the FAQs.
Quoted 7 lines
In any case, I was just trying to see why the simple removal of the
setup_max_cpuscheck inacpi_processor_add()wasn't enough to expose the cpuidle directories under the new cpus.. and while debugging that, I came up with this patch. I don't mind if this doesn't get picked up.Right, the usecase of why somebody would like to online new cpus beyond maxcpus doesn't look all that solid anyway. So I am OK with leaving the code as it is now.
In the end this is a debug option, I expect everybody is aware of that. Yep, let's just leave it...
Thomas
Re: [PATCH] acpi, cpuidle: Register with cpuidle even if cpu is onlined after boot (beyond maxcpus)
Quoted 59 lines · Thomas Renninger
Quoted 28 lines · Srivatsa S. Bhat
Quoted 26 lines · Thomas Renninger
Quoted 11 lines · Srivatsa S. Bhat
Daniel Lezcano noticed that after booting with maxcpus=X, if we online the remaining cpus by writing: echo 1 >
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuY/online, then for the newly onlined cpus, the cpuidle directory is not found under/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuY.Partly, the reason for this is that acpi restricts the initialization to cpus within the maxcpus limit. (See commit 75cbfb9 "ACPI: Do not try to set up acpi processor stuff on cores exceeding maxcpus="). The maxcpus= kernel parameter is used to restrict the number of cpus brought up during boot. That doesn't mean that we should hard restrict the bring up of the remaining cpus later on.
Sorry, but IMO it exaclty does mean that (adding more general lists for further comments).
If you can online more cores than maxcpus= via sysfs, this sounds like a bug. Not the other way around.
Compare with
Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt:
maxcpus= [SMP] Maximum number of processors that an SMP kernel
should make use of. maxcpus=n : n >= 0 limits the kernel to using 'n' processors. n=0 is a special case, it is equivalent to "nosmp", which also disables the IO APIC.Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
Chances that you run into more problems are high.
Right, I agree on that. So, IMHO, maxcpus=X doesn't mean that the kernel must and should forbid any new cpus from coming online, but in the interest of avoiding problems/complications in some obscure paths, I guess it makes sense to avoid onlining new cpus beyond maxcpus.
Yep, for such reasons:
- That nobody realizes this to be useful and makes use of it in a productive environment
- If I see maxcpus=X in a bugreport's dmesg command line,
I want to be sure that's true.
- To enforce that things work as documentedWow, after looking a bit into this I found (
Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt):maxcpus=n Restrict boot time cpus to n. Say if you have 4 cpus, using
maxcpus=2 will only boot 2. You can choose to bring the other cpus later online, read FAQ's for more info.Looks like someone already documented this (IMO broken) behavior. I didn't find further info in the FAQs.
Quoted 4 lines
In any case, I was just trying to see why the simple removal of the
setup_max_cpuscheck inacpi_processor_add()wasn't enough to expose the cpuidle directories under the new cpus.. and while debugging that, I came up with this patch. I don't mind if this doesn't get picked up.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Right, the usecase of why somebody would like to online new cpus beyond maxcpus doesn't look all that solid anyway. So I am OK with leaving the code as it is now.
In the end this is a debug option, I expect everybody is aware of that. Yep, let's just leave it...
In this case, let's remove the intel_idle_cpu_init stuff in acpi_cpu_soft_notify, no ?
Signature · 10 lines
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] acpi, cpuidle: Register with cpuidle even if cpu is onlined after boot (beyond maxcpus)
Quoted 60 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Quoted 59 lines · Thomas Renninger
Quoted 28 lines · Srivatsa S. Bhat
Quoted 26 lines · Thomas Renninger
Quoted 11 lines · Srivatsa S. Bhat
Daniel Lezcano noticed that after booting with maxcpus=X, if we online the remaining cpus by writing: echo 1 >
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuY/online, then for the newly onlined cpus, the cpuidle directory is not found under/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuY.Partly, the reason for this is that acpi restricts the initialization to cpus within the maxcpus limit. (See commit 75cbfb9 "ACPI: Do not try to set up acpi processor stuff on cores exceeding maxcpus="). The maxcpus= kernel parameter is used to restrict the number of cpus brought up during boot. That doesn't mean that we should hard restrict the bring up of the remaining cpus later on.
Sorry, but IMO it exaclty does mean that (adding more general lists for further comments).
If you can online more cores than maxcpus= via sysfs, this sounds like a bug. Not the other way around.
Compare with
Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt:
maxcpus= [SMP] Maximum number of processors that an SMP kernel
should make use of. maxcpus=n : n >= 0 limits the kernel to using 'n' processors. n=0 is a special case, it is equivalent to "nosmp", which also disables the IO APIC.Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
Chances that you run into more problems are high.
Right, I agree on that. So, IMHO, maxcpus=X doesn't mean that the kernel must and should forbid any new cpus from coming online, but in the interest of avoiding problems/complications in some obscure paths, I guess it makes sense to avoid onlining new cpus beyond maxcpus.
Yep, for such reasons:
- That nobody realizes this to be useful and makes use of it in a productive environment
- If I see maxcpus=X in a bugreport's dmesg command line,
I want to be sure that's true.
- To enforce that things work as documentedWow, after looking a bit into this I found (
Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt):maxcpus=n Restrict boot time cpus to n. Say if you have 4 cpus, using
maxcpus=2 will only boot 2. You can choose to bring the other cpus later online, read FAQ's for more info.Looks like someone already documented this (IMO broken) behavior. I didn't find further info in the FAQs.
Quoted 4 lines
In any case, I was just trying to see why the simple removal of the
setup_max_cpuscheck inacpi_processor_add()wasn't enough to expose the cpuidle directories under the new cpus.. and while debugging that, I came up with this patch. I don't mind if this doesn't get picked up.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Right, the usecase of why somebody would like to online new cpus beyond maxcpus doesn't look all that solid anyway. So I am OK with leaving the code as it is now.
In the end this is a debug option, I expect everybody is aware of that. Yep, let's just leave it...
In this case, let's remove the
intel_idle_cpu_initstuff inacpi_cpu_soft_notify, no ?
Why? And how would that help? The intel_idle_cpu_init() call is essential if intel_idle driver is being used instead of acpi idle.
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
Re: [PATCH] acpi, cpuidle: Register with cpuidle even if cpu is onlined after boot (beyond maxcpus)
Quoted 67 lines · Srivatsa S. Bhat
Quoted 66 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Quoted 64 lines · Thomas Renninger
Quoted 28 lines · Srivatsa S. Bhat
Quoted 26 lines · Thomas Renninger
Quoted 11 lines · Srivatsa S. Bhat
Daniel Lezcano noticed that after booting with maxcpus=X, if we online the remaining cpus by writing: echo 1 >
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuY/online, then for the newly onlined cpus, the cpuidle directory is not found under/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuY.Partly, the reason for this is that acpi restricts the initialization to cpus within the maxcpus limit. (See commit 75cbfb9 "ACPI: Do not try to set up acpi processor stuff on cores exceeding maxcpus="). The maxcpus= kernel parameter is used to restrict the number of cpus brought up during boot. That doesn't mean that we should hard restrict the bring up of the remaining cpus later on.
Sorry, but IMO it exaclty does mean that (adding more general lists for further comments).
If you can online more cores than maxcpus= via sysfs, this sounds like a bug. Not the other way around.
Compare with
Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt:
maxcpus= [SMP] Maximum number of processors that an SMP kernel
should make use of. maxcpus=n : n >= 0 limits the kernel to using 'n' processors. n=0 is a special case, it is equivalent to "nosmp", which also disables the IO APIC.Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
Chances that you run into more problems are high.
Right, I agree on that. So, IMHO, maxcpus=X doesn't mean that the kernel must and should forbid any new cpus from coming online, but in the interest of avoiding problems/complications in some obscure paths, I guess it makes sense to avoid onlining new cpus beyond maxcpus.
Yep, for such reasons:
- That nobody realizes this to be useful and makes use of it in a productive environment
- If I see maxcpus=X in a bugreport's dmesg command line,
I want to be sure that's true.
- To enforce that things work as documentedWow, after looking a bit into this I found (
Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt):maxcpus=n Restrict boot time cpus to n. Say if you have 4 cpus, using
maxcpus=2 will only boot 2. You can choose to bring the other cpus later online, read FAQ's for more info.Looks like someone already documented this (IMO broken) behavior. I didn't find further info in the FAQs.
Quoted 7 lines
In any case, I was just trying to see why the simple removal of the
setup_max_cpuscheck inacpi_processor_add()wasn't enough to expose the cpuidle directories under the new cpus.. and while debugging that, I came up with this patch. I don't mind if this doesn't get picked up.Right, the usecase of why somebody would like to online new cpus beyond maxcpus doesn't look all that solid anyway. So I am OK with leaving the code as it is now.
In the end this is a debug option, I expect everybody is aware of that. Yep, let's just leave it...
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
In this case, let's remove the
intel_idle_cpu_initstuff inacpi_cpu_soft_notify, no ?Why? And how would that help? The
intel_idle_cpu_init()call is essential ifintel_idledriver is being used instead of acpi idle.
AFAIU, this code is not called after onlining a cpu greater than maxcpus and Thomas thinks that system with cpu hotplug at runtime are not sold.
The problem I see with this code is acpi and intel-idle are tied together now. I would like to break this dependency and use the notifier to handle the cpu hotplug directly in intel-idle.
It is hard to test my patch as there is not such system and maxcpus is not correctly handled here. I can use your patch to test my patch but anyway ... I am just asking if that would make sense to remove this portion of code instead :)
If we want to keep this code untouched, I can try my patch and maybe Thomas will agreed to test it also on a cpu-online-runtime-system if he has one.
Thanks
-- Daniel
Signature · 5 lines
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Re: [PATCH] acpi, cpuidle: Register with cpuidle even if cpu is onlined after boot (beyond maxcpus)
Quoted 3 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Quoted 2 lines · Srivatsa S. Bhat
Quoted 1 line · Daniel Lezcano
On 06/26/2012 11:29 AM, Thomas Renninger wrote:
...
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
In this case, let's remove the
intel_idle_cpu_initstuff inacpi_cpu_soft_notify, no ?Why? And how would that help? The
intel_idle_cpu_init()call is essential ifintel_idledriver is being used instead of acpi idle.AFAIU, this code is not called after onlining a cpu greater than maxcpus and Thomas thinks that system with cpu hotplug at runtime are not sold.
Not 100% sure. Also the code paths to handle real CPU hotplug existed already (via ACPI notify on the processor object) and did work. I only fixed to correctly initialize idle states.
Quoted 4 lines
The problem I see with this code is acpi and intel-idle are tied together now. I would like to break this dependency and use the notifier to handle the cpu hotplug directly in intel-idle.
Quoted 8 lines
It is hard to test my patch as there is not such system and maxcpus is not correctly handled here. I can use your patch to test my patch but anyway ... I am just asking if that would make sense to remove this portion of code instead :)
If we want to keep this code untouched, I can try my patch and maybe Thomas will agreed to test it also on a cpu-online-runtime-system if he has one.
But not this patch, we agreed it's not worth to look at:
"System exceeding maxcpus=x via cpu soft onlining does not initialize power management on exceeding cores", right?
If you have a patch touching this, please point me to it. I can have a look at it and if really necessary give it a test.
Thomas
PATCH 1/1 acpi: intel_idle : break dependency between modules
When the system is booted with some cpus offline, the idle driver is not initialized. When a cpu is set online, the acpi code call the intel idle init function. Unfortunately this code introduce a dependency between intel_idle and acpi.
This patch is intended to remove this dependency by using the notifier of intel_idle. In order to make it work, the notifier must be initialized in the right order, acpi then intel_idle. This is done in the Makefile. This patch has the benefit of encapsulating the intel_idle driver and remove some exported functions.
--- drivers/Makefile | 3 ++- drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 7 ------- drivers/idle/intel_idle.c | 22 ++++++++++++++-------- include/linux/cpuidle.h | 7 ------- 4 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
drivers/Makefile +2 -1
@@ -12,8 +12,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PCI) += pci/ obj-$(CONFIG_PARISC) += parisc/ obj-$(CONFIG_RAPIDIO) += rapidio/ obj-y += video/ -obj-y += idle/ +# acpi must come before idle for initialization obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI) += acpi/ +obj-y += idle/ obj-$(CONFIG_SFI) += sfi/ # PnP must come after ACPI since it will eventually need to check if acpi # was used and do nothing if so
drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c +0 -7
@@ -427,18 +427,11 @@ static int acpi_cpu_soft_notify(struct notifier_block *nfb,* Initialize missing things */ if (pr->flags.need_hotplug_init) { -struct cpuidle_driver *idle_driver = -cpuidle_get_driver (); -printk (KERN_INFO "Will online and init hotplugged " "CPU: %d\n" , pr->id);WARN (acpi_processor_start (pr),"Failed to start CPU:" " %d\n" , pr->id); pr->flags.need_hotplug_init =0 ; -if (idle_driver && !strcmp (idle_driver->name, -"intel_idle" )) { -intel_idle_cpu_init (pr->id); - }/* Normal CPU soft online event */ }else {acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed (pr,0 );
drivers/idle/intel_idle.c +14 -8
@@ -96,6 +96,7 @@ static const struct idle_cpu *icpu;static struct cpuidle_device __percpu *intel_idle_cpuidle_devices;static int intel_idle (struct cpuidle_device *dev,struct cpuidle_driver *drv,int index); +static int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu);static struct cpuidle_state *cpuidle_state_table;
@@ -302,22 +303,28 @@ static void __setup_broadcast_timer(void *arg)clockevents_notify (reason, &cpu); } -static int setup_broadcast_cpuhp_notify (struct notifier_block *n, -unsigned long action,void *hcpu) +static int cpu_hotplug_notify (struct notifier_block *n, +unsigned long action,void *hcpu) {int hotcpu = (unsigned long )hcpu; +struct cpuidle_device *dev;switch (action &0xf ) {case CPU_ONLINE :smp_call_function_single (hotcpu, __setup_broadcast_timer, (void *)true,1 ); + + dev =per_cpu_ptr (intel_idle_cpuidle_devices, hotcpu); +if (!dev->registered) +intel_idle_cpu_init (hotcpu); +break ; }return NOTIFY_OK ; } -static struct notifier_block setup_broadcast_notifier = { - .notifier_call = setup_broadcast_cpuhp_notify, +static struct notifier_block cpu_hotplug_notifier = { + .notifier_call = cpu_hotplug_notify, };static void auto_demotion_disable (void *dummy)
@@ -407,7 +414,7 @@ static int intel_idle_probe(void) lapic_timer_reliable_states =LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE ; else {on_each_cpu (__setup_broadcast_timer, (void *)true,1 ); -register_cpu_notifier (&setup_broadcast_notifier); +register_cpu_notifier (&cpu_hotplug_notifier); } pr_debug(PREFIX "v" INTEL_IDLE_VERSION
@@ -494,7 +501,7 @@ static int intel_idle_cpuidle_driver_init(void)* allocate, initialize, register cpuidle_devices * @cpu: cpu/core to initialize */ -int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) +static int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) {int cstate;struct cpuidle_device *dev;
@@ -539,7 +546,6 @@ int intel_idle_cpu_init(int cpu)return 0 ; } -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (intel_idle_cpu_init);static int __init intel_idle_init (void ) {
@@ -583,7 +589,7 @@ static void __exit intel_idle_exit(void)if (lapic_timer_reliable_states !=LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE ) {on_each_cpu (__setup_broadcast_timer, (void *)false,1 ); -unregister_cpu_notifier (&setup_broadcast_notifier); +unregister_cpu_notifier (&cpu_hotplug_notifier); }return ;
include/linux/cpuidle.h +0 -7
@@ -213,14 +213,7 @@ struct cpuidle_governor {extern int cpuidle_register_governor (struct cpuidle_governor *gov);extern void cpuidle_unregister_governor (struct cpuidle_governor *gov); -#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_IDLE -extern int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu);#else -static inline int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) {return -1 ; } -#endif - -#else -static inline int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) {return -1 ; }static inline int cpuidle_register_governor (struct cpuidle_governor *gov) {return 0 ;}
Signature · 1 line
1.7.5.4
Re: [PATCH] acpi: intel_idle : break dependency between modules
Hi,
I agree that such a dependency between 2 modules is not nice. But your patch will have bad side-effects (see comments embedded below).
Quoted 25 lines · Daniel Lezcano
When the system is booted with some cpus offline, the idle driver is not initialized. When a cpu is set online, the acpi code call the intel idle init function. Unfortunately this code introduce a dependency between
intel_idleand acpi.This patch is intended to remove this dependency by using the notifier of
intel_idle. In order to make it work, the notifier must be initialized in the right order, acpi thenintel_idle. This is done in theMakefile. This patch has the benefit of encapsulating theintel_idledriver and remove some exported functions.Signed-off-by Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]>--- drivers/Makefile | 3 ++- drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 7 ------- drivers/idle/intel_idle.c | 22 ++++++++++++++-------- include/linux/cpuidle.h | 7 ------- 4 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)drivers/Makefile +0
-0
drivers/Makefile obj-$(CONFIG_PCI) += pci/ · line 17
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/Makefile +2
-1@@ -12,8 +12,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PCI) += pci/ obj-$(CONFIG_PARISC) += parisc/ obj-$(CONFIG_RAPIDIO) += rapidio/ obj-y += video/ -obj-y += idle/ +# acpi must come before idle for initialization obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI) += acpi/ +obj-y += idle/
This breaks intel_idle.
Loading order defines which one comes first and is used: intel_idle or ACPI processor cpuidle driver.
With above, one would get acpi_idle cpuidle driver if both are compiled in, instead of the intel_idle one.
Why exactly is this necessary, couldn't it just work?
Quoted 49 lines
drivers/Makefile +0
-0obj-$(CONFIG_SFI) += sfi/ # PnP must come after ACPI since it will eventually need to check if acpi # was used and do nothing if sodrivers/acpi/processor_driver.c +0
-7@@ -427,18 +427,11 @@ static int acpi_cpu_soft_notify(struct notifier_block *nfb,* Initialize missing things */ if (pr->flags.need_hotplug_init) { -struct cpuidle_driver *idle_driver = -cpuidle_get_driver (); -printk (KERN_INFO "Will online and init hotplugged " "CPU: %d\n" , pr->id);WARN (acpi_processor_start (pr),"Failed to start CPU:" " %d\n" , pr->id); pr->flags.need_hotplug_init =0 ; -if (idle_driver && !strcmp (idle_driver->name, -"intel_idle" )) { -intel_idle_cpu_init (pr->id); - }/* Normal CPU soft online event */ }else {acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed (pr,0 );drivers/idle/intel_idle.c +4
-2@@ -96,6 +96,7 @@ static const struct idle_cpu *icpu;static struct cpuidle_device __percpu *intel_idle_cpuidle_devices;static int intel_idle (struct cpuidle_device *dev,struct cpuidle_driver *drv,int index); +static int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu);static struct cpuidle_state *cpuidle_state_table;@@ -302,22 +303,28 @@ static void __setup_broadcast_timer(void *arg)clockevents_notify (reason, &cpu); } -static int setup_broadcast_cpuhp_notify (struct notifier_block *n, -unsigned long action,void *hcpu) +static int cpu_hotplug_notify (struct notifier_block *n, +unsigned long action,void *hcpu) {int hotcpu = (unsigned long )hcpu; +struct cpuidle_device *dev;
drivers/idle/intel_idle.c static void __setup_broadcast_timer(void *arg) · line 320
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/idle/intel_idle.c +5
-0switch (action &0xf ) {case CPU_ONLINE :smp_call_function_single (hotcpu, __setup_broadcast_timer, (void *)true,1 ); + + dev =per_cpu_ptr (intel_idle_cpuidle_devices, hotcpu); +if (!dev->registered) +intel_idle_cpu_init (hotcpu); +
A small comment why this can happen and needs to be done (real hotplugged cpu case) might help here later.
Quoted 13 lines
drivers/idle/intel_idle.c +2
-2break ; }return NOTIFY_OK ; } -static struct notifier_block setup_broadcast_notifier = { - .notifier_call = setup_broadcast_cpuhp_notify, +static struct notifier_block cpu_hotplug_notifier = { + .notifier_call = cpu_hotplug_notify, };static void auto_demotion_disable (void *dummy)
drivers/idle/intel_idle.c static int intel_idle_probe(void) · line 417
Quoted 5 lines
drivers/idle/intel_idle.c +1
-1@@ -407,7 +414,7 @@ static int intel_idle_probe(void) lapic_timer_reliable_states =LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE ; else {on_each_cpu (__setup_broadcast_timer, (void *)true,1 ); -register_cpu_notifier (&setup_broadcast_notifier); +register_cpu_notifier (&cpu_hotplug_notifier);
The notifier always has to be registered now, not only in:
if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARAT)) /* Always Reliable APIC Timer */
case.
Quoted 21 lines
drivers/idle/intel_idle.c +1
-2} pr_debug(PREFIX "v" INTEL_IDLE_VERSION@@ -494,7 +501,7 @@ static int intel_idle_cpuidle_driver_init(void)* allocate, initialize, register cpuidle_devices * @cpu: cpu/core to initialize */ -int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) +static int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) {int cstate;struct cpuidle_device *dev;@@ -539,7 +546,6 @@ int intel_idle_cpu_init(int cpu)return 0 ; } -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (intel_idle_cpu_init);static int __init intel_idle_init (void ) {
drivers/idle/intel_idle.c static void __exit intel_idle_exit(void) · line 592
Quoted 5 lines
drivers/idle/intel_idle.c +1
-1@@ -583,7 +589,7 @@ static void __exit intel_idle_exit(void)if (lapic_timer_reliable_states !=LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE ) {on_each_cpu (__setup_broadcast_timer, (void *)false,1 ); -unregister_cpu_notifier (&setup_broadcast_notifier); +unregister_cpu_notifier (&cpu_hotplug_notifier);
Same.
Re: [PATCH] acpi: intel_idle : break dependency between modules
Quoted 45 lines · Thomas Renninger
Hi,
I agree that such a dependency between 2 modules is not nice. But your patch will have bad side-effects (see comments embedded below).
Quoted 25 lines · Daniel Lezcano
When the system is booted with some cpus offline, the idle driver is not initialized. When a cpu is set online, the acpi code call the intel idle init function. Unfortunately this code introduce a dependency between
intel_idleand acpi.This patch is intended to remove this dependency by using the notifier of
intel_idle. In order to make it work, the notifier must be initialized in the right order, acpi thenintel_idle. This is done in theMakefile. This patch has the benefit of encapsulating theintel_idledriver and remove some exported functions.Signed-off-by Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]>--- drivers/Makefile | 3 ++- drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 7 ------- drivers/idle/intel_idle.c | 22 ++++++++++++++-------- include/linux/cpuidle.h | 7 ------- 4 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)drivers/Makefile +0
-0drivers/Makefile obj-$(CONFIG_PCI) += pci/ · line 17
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/Makefile +2
-1@@ -12,8 +12,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PCI) += pci/ obj-$(CONFIG_PARISC) += parisc/ obj-$(CONFIG_RAPIDIO) += rapidio/ obj-y += video/ -obj-y += idle/ +# acpi must come before idle for initialization obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI) += acpi/ +obj-y += idle/This breaks
intel_idle.
Loading order defines which one comes first and is used:intel_idleor ACPI processor cpuidle driver.
With above, one would getacpi_idlecpuidle driver if both are compiled in, instead of theintel_idleone.
Quoted 1 line
Why exactly is this necessary, couldn't it just work?
[...]
I just wanted to keep same order. If it is not necessary, I won't invert the compilation order in the next patch.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/Makefile +2
-2-static int setup_broadcast_cpuhp_notify(struct notifier_block *n, - unsigned long action, void *hcpu) +static int cpu_hotplug_notify(struct notifier_block *n, + unsigned long action, void *hcpu) {drivers/Makefile +1
-0int hotcpu = (unsigned long)hcpu; + struct cpuidle_device *dev;
Quoted 11 lines
drivers/Makefile
Quoted 9 lines
drivers/Makefile +5
-0switch (action & 0xf) { case CPU_ONLINE: smp_call_function_single(hotcpu, __setup_broadcast_timer, (void *)true, 1); + + dev = per_cpu_ptr(intel_idle_cpuidle_devices, hotcpu); + if (!dev->registered) + intel_idle_cpu_init(hotcpu); +A small comment why this can happen and needs to be done (real hotplugged cpu case) might help here later.
Yes, that makes sense.
[...]
Quoted 11 lines
drivers/Makefile static int intel_idle_probe(void) · line 417
Quoted 7 lines
static void
auto_demotion_disable(void *dummy)drivers/Makefile +1
-1@@ -407,7 +414,7 @@ static int intel_idle_probe(void) lapic_timer_reliable_states = LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE; else { on_each_cpu(__setup_broadcast_timer, (void *)true, 1); - register_cpu_notifier(&setup_broadcast_notifier); + register_cpu_notifier(&cpu_hotplug_notifier);The notifier always has to be registered now, not only in:
if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARAT)) /* Always Reliable APIC Timer */
case.
Oops, right.
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 20 lines
drivers/Makefile +1
-2pr_debug(PREFIX "v" INTEL_IDLE_VERSION@@ -494,7 +501,7 @@ static int intel_idle_cpuidle_driver_init(void) * allocate, initialize, register cpuidle_devices * @cpu: cpu/core to initialize */ -int intel_idle_cpu_init(int cpu) +static int intel_idle_cpu_init(int cpu) { int cstate; struct cpuidle_device *dev;@@ -539,7 +546,6 @@ int intel_idle_cpu_init(int cpu) return 0; } -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(intel_idle_cpu_init); static int __init intel_idle_init(void) {@@ -583,7 +589,7 @@ static void __exit intel_idle_exit(void)
Quoted 5 lines
drivers/Makefile static void __exit intel_idle_exit(void) · line 592
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/Makefile +1
-1if (lapic_timer_reliable_states != LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE) { on_each_cpu(__setup_broadcast_timer, (void *)false, 1); - unregister_cpu_notifier(&setup_broadcast_notifier); + unregister_cpu_notifier(&cpu_hotplug_notifier);Same.
Thanks for the review !
-- Daniel
Signature · 11 lines
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
PATCH v2 1/1 acpi: intel_idle : break dependency between modules
In reply to Thomas RenningerWhen the system is booted with some cpus offline, the idle driver is not initialized. When a cpu is set online, the acpi code call the intel idle init function. Unfortunately this code introduce a dependency between intel_idle and acpi.
This patch is intended to remove this dependency by using the notifier of intel_idle. This patch has the benefit of encapsulating the intel_idle driver and remove some exported functions.
--- drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 7 ------ drivers/idle/intel_idle.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- include/linux/cpuidle.h | 7 ------ 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c +0 -7
@@ -427,18 +427,11 @@ static int acpi_cpu_soft_notify(struct notifier_block *nfb,* Initialize missing things */ if (pr->flags.need_hotplug_init) { -struct cpuidle_driver *idle_driver = -cpuidle_get_driver (); -printk (KERN_INFO "Will online and init hotplugged " "CPU: %d\n" , pr->id);WARN (acpi_processor_start (pr),"Failed to start CPU:" " %d\n" , pr->id); pr->flags.need_hotplug_init =0 ; -if (idle_driver && !strcmp (idle_driver->name, -"intel_idle" )) { -intel_idle_cpu_init (pr->id); - }/* Normal CPU soft online event */ }else {acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed (pr,0 );
drivers/idle/intel_idle.c +27 -14
89 lines not on this page · raw message
include/linux/cpuidle.h +0 -7
@@ -213,14 +213,7 @@ struct cpuidle_governor {extern int cpuidle_register_governor (struct cpuidle_governor *gov);extern void cpuidle_unregister_governor (struct cpuidle_governor *gov); -#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_IDLE -extern int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu);#else -static inline int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) {return -1 ; } -#endif - -#else -static inline int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) {return -1 ; }static inline int cpuidle_register_governor (struct cpuidle_governor *gov) {return 0 ;}
Signature · 1 line
1.7.5.4
Re: [PATCH v2] acpi: intel_idle : break dependency between modules
Quoted 11 lines · Daniel Lezcano
When the system is booted with some cpus offline, the idle driver is not initialized. When a cpu is set online, the acpi code call the intel idle init function. Unfortunately this code introduce a dependency between
intel_idleand acpi.This patch is intended to remove this dependency by using the notifier of
intel_idle. This patch has the benefit of encapsulating theintel_idledriver and remove some exported functions.Signed-off-by Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]>
Looks good to me.
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
Quoted 148 lines
--- drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 7 ------ drivers/idle/intel_idle.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- include/linux/cpuidle.h | 7 ------ 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c +0
-7@@ -427,18 +427,11 @@ static int acpi_cpu_soft_notify(struct notifier_block *nfb,* Initialize missing things */ if (pr->flags.need_hotplug_init) { -struct cpuidle_driver *idle_driver = -cpuidle_get_driver (); -printk (KERN_INFO "Will online and init hotplugged " "CPU: %d\n" , pr->id);WARN (acpi_processor_start (pr),"Failed to start CPU:" " %d\n" , pr->id); pr->flags.need_hotplug_init =0 ; -if (idle_driver && !strcmp (idle_driver->name, -"intel_idle" )) { -intel_idle_cpu_init (pr->id); - }/* Normal CPU soft online event */ }else {acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed (pr,0 );drivers/idle/intel_idle.c +27
-14@@ -96,6 +96,7 @@ static const struct idle_cpu *icpu;static struct cpuidle_device __percpu *intel_idle_cpuidle_devices;static int intel_idle (struct cpuidle_device *dev,struct cpuidle_driver *drv,int index); +static int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu);static struct cpuidle_state *cpuidle_state_table;@@ -302,22 +303,35 @@ static void __setup_broadcast_timer(void *arg)clockevents_notify (reason, &cpu); } -static int setup_broadcast_cpuhp_notify (struct notifier_block *n, -unsigned long action,void *hcpu) +static int cpu_hotplug_notify (struct notifier_block *n, +unsigned long action,void *hcpu) {int hotcpu = (unsigned long )hcpu; +struct cpuidle_device *dev;switch (action &0xf ) {case CPU_ONLINE : -smp_call_function_single (hotcpu, __setup_broadcast_timer, - (void *)true,1 ); + +if (lapic_timer_reliable_states !=LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE ) +smp_call_function_single (hotcpu, __setup_broadcast_timer, + (void *)true,1 ); + +/* +* Some systems can hotplug a cpu at runtime after +* the kernel has booted, we have to initialize the +* driver in this case +*/ + dev =per_cpu_ptr (intel_idle_cpuidle_devices, hotcpu); +if (!dev->registered) +intel_idle_cpu_init (hotcpu); +break ; }return NOTIFY_OK ; } -static struct notifier_block setup_broadcast_notifier = { - .notifier_call = setup_broadcast_cpuhp_notify, +static struct notifier_block cpu_hotplug_notifier = { + .notifier_call = cpu_hotplug_notify, };static void auto_demotion_disable (void *dummy)@@ -405,10 +419,10 @@ static int intel_idle_probe(void)if (boot_cpu_has (X86_FEATURE_ARAT ))/* Always Reliable APIC Timer */ lapic_timer_reliable_states =LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE ; -else { +else on_each_cpu (__setup_broadcast_timer, (void *)true,1 ); -register_cpu_notifier (&setup_broadcast_notifier); - } + +register_cpu_notifier (&cpu_hotplug_notifier);pr_debug (PREFIX "v" INTEL_IDLE_VERSION " model 0x%X\n" , boot_cpu_data.x86_model);@@ -494,7 +508,7 @@ static int intel_idle_cpuidle_driver_init(void)* allocate, initialize, register cpuidle_devices * @cpu: cpu/core to initialize */ -int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) +static int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) {int cstate;struct cpuidle_device *dev;@@ -539,7 +553,6 @@ int intel_idle_cpu_init(int cpu)return 0 ; } -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (intel_idle_cpu_init);static int __init intel_idle_init (void ) {@@ -581,10 +594,10 @@ static void __exit intel_idle_exit(void)intel_idle_cpuidle_devices_uninit ();cpuidle_unregister_driver (&intel_idle_driver); -if (lapic_timer_reliable_states !=LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE ) { + +if (lapic_timer_reliable_states !=LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE )on_each_cpu (__setup_broadcast_timer, (void *)false,1 ); -unregister_cpu_notifier (&setup_broadcast_notifier); - } +unregister_cpu_notifier (&cpu_hotplug_notifier);return ; }include/linux/cpuidle.h +0
-7@@ -213,14 +213,7 @@ struct cpuidle_governor {extern int cpuidle_register_governor (struct cpuidle_governor *gov);extern void cpuidle_unregister_governor (struct cpuidle_governor *gov); -#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_IDLE -extern int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu);#else -static inline int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) {return -1 ; } -#endif - -#else -static inline int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) {return -1 ; }static inline int cpuidle_register_governor (struct cpuidle_governor *gov) {return 0 ;}
Re: [PATCH v2] acpi: intel_idle : break dependency between modules
Quoted 11 lines · Srivatsa S. Bhat
Quoted 10 lines · Daniel Lezcano
When the system is booted with some cpus offline, the idle driver is not initialized. When a cpu is set online, the acpi code call the intel idle init function. Unfortunately this code introduce a dependency between
intel_idleand acpi.This patch is intended to remove this dependency by using the notifier of
intel_idle. This patch has the benefit of encapsulating theintel_idledriver and remove some exported functions.
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]>Looks good to me.
Thanks for the review Srivatsa.
Shall I consider it as an acked-by ?
-- Daniel
Quoted 153 lines
Regards,
Srivatsa S. BhatQuoted 148 lines
--- drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 7 ------ drivers/idle/intel_idle.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- include/linux/cpuidle.h | 7 ------ 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c +0
-7@@ -427,18 +427,11 @@ static int acpi_cpu_soft_notify(struct notifier_block *nfb,* Initialize missing things */ if (pr->flags.need_hotplug_init) { -struct cpuidle_driver *idle_driver = -cpuidle_get_driver (); -printk (KERN_INFO "Will online and init hotplugged " "CPU: %d\n" , pr->id);WARN (acpi_processor_start (pr),"Failed to start CPU:" " %d\n" , pr->id); pr->flags.need_hotplug_init =0 ; -if (idle_driver && !strcmp (idle_driver->name, -"intel_idle" )) { -intel_idle_cpu_init (pr->id); - }/* Normal CPU soft online event */ }else {acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed (pr,0 );drivers/idle/intel_idle.c +27
-14@@ -96,6 +96,7 @@ static const struct idle_cpu *icpu;static struct cpuidle_device __percpu *intel_idle_cpuidle_devices;static int intel_idle (struct cpuidle_device *dev,struct cpuidle_driver *drv,int index); +static int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu);static struct cpuidle_state *cpuidle_state_table;@@ -302,22 +303,35 @@ static void __setup_broadcast_timer(void *arg)clockevents_notify (reason, &cpu); } -static int setup_broadcast_cpuhp_notify (struct notifier_block *n, -unsigned long action,void *hcpu) +static int cpu_hotplug_notify (struct notifier_block *n, +unsigned long action,void *hcpu) {int hotcpu = (unsigned long )hcpu; +struct cpuidle_device *dev;switch (action &0xf ) {case CPU_ONLINE : -smp_call_function_single (hotcpu, __setup_broadcast_timer, - (void *)true,1 ); + +if (lapic_timer_reliable_states !=LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE ) +smp_call_function_single (hotcpu, __setup_broadcast_timer, + (void *)true,1 ); + +/* +* Some systems can hotplug a cpu at runtime after +* the kernel has booted, we have to initialize the +* driver in this case +*/ + dev =per_cpu_ptr (intel_idle_cpuidle_devices, hotcpu); +if (!dev->registered) +intel_idle_cpu_init (hotcpu); +break ; }return NOTIFY_OK ; } -static struct notifier_block setup_broadcast_notifier = { - .notifier_call = setup_broadcast_cpuhp_notify, +static struct notifier_block cpu_hotplug_notifier = { + .notifier_call = cpu_hotplug_notify, };static void auto_demotion_disable (void *dummy)@@ -405,10 +419,10 @@ static int intel_idle_probe(void)if (boot_cpu_has (X86_FEATURE_ARAT ))/* Always Reliable APIC Timer */ lapic_timer_reliable_states =LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE ; -else { +else on_each_cpu (__setup_broadcast_timer, (void *)true,1 ); -register_cpu_notifier (&setup_broadcast_notifier); - } + +register_cpu_notifier (&cpu_hotplug_notifier);pr_debug (PREFIX "v" INTEL_IDLE_VERSION " model 0x%X\n" , boot_cpu_data.x86_model);@@ -494,7 +508,7 @@ static int intel_idle_cpuidle_driver_init(void)* allocate, initialize, register cpuidle_devices * @cpu: cpu/core to initialize */ -int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) +static int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) {int cstate;struct cpuidle_device *dev;@@ -539,7 +553,6 @@ int intel_idle_cpu_init(int cpu)return 0 ; } -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (intel_idle_cpu_init);static int __init intel_idle_init (void ) {@@ -581,10 +594,10 @@ static void __exit intel_idle_exit(void)intel_idle_cpuidle_devices_uninit ();cpuidle_unregister_driver (&intel_idle_driver); -if (lapic_timer_reliable_states !=LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE ) { + +if (lapic_timer_reliable_states !=LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE )on_each_cpu (__setup_broadcast_timer, (void *)false,1 ); -unregister_cpu_notifier (&setup_broadcast_notifier); - } +unregister_cpu_notifier (&cpu_hotplug_notifier);return ; }include/linux/cpuidle.h +0
-7@@ -213,14 +213,7 @@ struct cpuidle_governor {extern int cpuidle_register_governor (struct cpuidle_governor *gov);extern void cpuidle_unregister_governor (struct cpuidle_governor *gov); -#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_IDLE -extern int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu);#else -static inline int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) {return -1 ; } -#endif - -#else -static inline int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) {return -1 ; }static inline int cpuidle_register_governor (struct cpuidle_governor *gov) {return 0 ;}
Signature · 5 lines
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Re: [PATCH v2] acpi: intel_idle : break dependency between modules
Quoted 12 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Quoted 11 lines · Srivatsa S. Bhat
Quoted 10 lines · Daniel Lezcano
When the system is booted with some cpus offline, the idle driver is not initialized. When a cpu is set online, the acpi code call the intel idle init function. Unfortunately this code introduce a dependency between
intel_idleand acpi.This patch is intended to remove this dependency by using the notifier of
intel_idle. This patch has the benefit of encapsulating theintel_idledriver and remove some exported functions.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]>Looks good to me.
Thanks for the review Srivatsa.
Shall I consider it as an acked-by ?
Sure, go ahead! :-)
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
Re: [PATCH v2] acpi: intel_idle : break dependency between modules
In reply to Daniel LezcanoQuoted 11 lines · Daniel Lezcano
When the system is booted with some cpus offline, the idle driver is not initialized. When a cpu is set online, the acpi code call the intel idle init function. Unfortunately this code introduce a dependency between
intel_idleand acpi.This patch is intended to remove this dependency by using the notifier of
intel_idle. This patch has the benefit of encapsulating theintel_idledriver and remove some exported functions.Signed-off-by Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]>
This one looks good to me too.
Len, are you going to take it?
Rafael
Quoted 148 lines
--- drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 7 ------ drivers/idle/intel_idle.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- include/linux/cpuidle.h | 7 ------ 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c +0
-7@@ -427,18 +427,11 @@ static int acpi_cpu_soft_notify(struct notifier_block *nfb,* Initialize missing things */ if (pr->flags.need_hotplug_init) { -struct cpuidle_driver *idle_driver = -cpuidle_get_driver (); -printk (KERN_INFO "Will online and init hotplugged " "CPU: %d\n" , pr->id);WARN (acpi_processor_start (pr),"Failed to start CPU:" " %d\n" , pr->id); pr->flags.need_hotplug_init =0 ; -if (idle_driver && !strcmp (idle_driver->name, -"intel_idle" )) { -intel_idle_cpu_init (pr->id); - }/* Normal CPU soft online event */ }else {acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed (pr,0 );drivers/idle/intel_idle.c +27
-14@@ -96,6 +96,7 @@ static const struct idle_cpu *icpu;static struct cpuidle_device __percpu *intel_idle_cpuidle_devices;static int intel_idle (struct cpuidle_device *dev,struct cpuidle_driver *drv,int index); +static int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu);static struct cpuidle_state *cpuidle_state_table;@@ -302,22 +303,35 @@ static void __setup_broadcast_timer(void *arg)clockevents_notify (reason, &cpu); } -static int setup_broadcast_cpuhp_notify (struct notifier_block *n, -unsigned long action,void *hcpu) +static int cpu_hotplug_notify (struct notifier_block *n, +unsigned long action,void *hcpu) {int hotcpu = (unsigned long )hcpu; +struct cpuidle_device *dev;switch (action &0xf ) {case CPU_ONLINE : -smp_call_function_single (hotcpu, __setup_broadcast_timer, - (void *)true,1 ); + +if (lapic_timer_reliable_states !=LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE ) +smp_call_function_single (hotcpu, __setup_broadcast_timer, + (void *)true,1 ); + +/* +* Some systems can hotplug a cpu at runtime after +* the kernel has booted, we have to initialize the +* driver in this case +*/ + dev =per_cpu_ptr (intel_idle_cpuidle_devices, hotcpu); +if (!dev->registered) +intel_idle_cpu_init (hotcpu); +break ; }return NOTIFY_OK ; } -static struct notifier_block setup_broadcast_notifier = { - .notifier_call = setup_broadcast_cpuhp_notify, +static struct notifier_block cpu_hotplug_notifier = { + .notifier_call = cpu_hotplug_notify, };static void auto_demotion_disable (void *dummy)@@ -405,10 +419,10 @@ static int intel_idle_probe(void)if (boot_cpu_has (X86_FEATURE_ARAT ))/* Always Reliable APIC Timer */ lapic_timer_reliable_states =LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE ; -else { +else on_each_cpu (__setup_broadcast_timer, (void *)true,1 ); -register_cpu_notifier (&setup_broadcast_notifier); - } + +register_cpu_notifier (&cpu_hotplug_notifier);pr_debug (PREFIX "v" INTEL_IDLE_VERSION " model 0x%X\n" , boot_cpu_data.x86_model);@@ -494,7 +508,7 @@ static int intel_idle_cpuidle_driver_init(void)* allocate, initialize, register cpuidle_devices * @cpu: cpu/core to initialize */ -int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) +static int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) {int cstate;struct cpuidle_device *dev;@@ -539,7 +553,6 @@ int intel_idle_cpu_init(int cpu)return 0 ; } -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (intel_idle_cpu_init);static int __init intel_idle_init (void ) {@@ -581,10 +594,10 @@ static void __exit intel_idle_exit(void)intel_idle_cpuidle_devices_uninit ();cpuidle_unregister_driver (&intel_idle_driver); -if (lapic_timer_reliable_states !=LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE ) { + +if (lapic_timer_reliable_states !=LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE )on_each_cpu (__setup_broadcast_timer, (void *)false,1 ); -unregister_cpu_notifier (&setup_broadcast_notifier); - } +unregister_cpu_notifier (&cpu_hotplug_notifier);return ; }include/linux/cpuidle.h +0
-7@@ -213,14 +213,7 @@ struct cpuidle_governor {extern int cpuidle_register_governor (struct cpuidle_governor *gov);extern void cpuidle_unregister_governor (struct cpuidle_governor *gov); -#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_IDLE -extern int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu);#else -static inline int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) {return -1 ; } -#endif - -#else -static inline int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) {return -1 ; }static inline int cpuidle_register_governor (struct cpuidle_governor *gov) {return 0 ;}
Re: [PATCH v2] acpi: intel_idle : break dependency between modules
Quoted 11 lines · Rafael J. Wysocki
Quoted 10 lines · Daniel Lezcano
When the system is booted with some cpus offline, the idle driver is not initialized. When a cpu is set online, the acpi code call the intel idle init function. Unfortunately this code introduce a dependency between
intel_idleand acpi.This patch is intended to remove this dependency by using the notifier of
intel_idle. This patch has the benefit of encapsulating theintel_idledriver and remove some exported functions.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]>This one looks good to me too.
Thanks for the review Rafael.
Quoted 1 line
Len, are you going to take it?
Rafael, Len,
After the discussion [1], I put in place a tree at:
ssh://git.linaro.org/srv/git.linaro.org/git/people/dlezcano/cpuidle-next.git #cpuidle-next
I proposed this tree to group the cpuidle modifications and prevent the last minutes conflict when Len will apply them.
I also included the tree into linux-next for wider testing.
If you want I can take this patch even if it is related to acpi also and in the future if you agree, Len or you could pull from there.
Thanks
-- Daniel
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/18/113
Quoted 153 lines
Rafael
Quoted 148 lines
--- drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 7 ------ drivers/idle/intel_idle.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- include/linux/cpuidle.h | 7 ------ 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c +0
-7@@ -427,18 +427,11 @@ static int acpi_cpu_soft_notify(struct notifier_block *nfb,* Initialize missing things */ if (pr->flags.need_hotplug_init) { -struct cpuidle_driver *idle_driver = -cpuidle_get_driver (); -printk (KERN_INFO "Will online and init hotplugged " "CPU: %d\n" , pr->id);WARN (acpi_processor_start (pr),"Failed to start CPU:" " %d\n" , pr->id); pr->flags.need_hotplug_init =0 ; -if (idle_driver && !strcmp (idle_driver->name, -"intel_idle" )) { -intel_idle_cpu_init (pr->id); - }/* Normal CPU soft online event */ }else {acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed (pr,0 );drivers/idle/intel_idle.c +27
-14@@ -96,6 +96,7 @@ static const struct idle_cpu *icpu;static struct cpuidle_device __percpu *intel_idle_cpuidle_devices;static int intel_idle (struct cpuidle_device *dev,struct cpuidle_driver *drv,int index); +static int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu);static struct cpuidle_state *cpuidle_state_table;@@ -302,22 +303,35 @@ static void __setup_broadcast_timer(void *arg)clockevents_notify (reason, &cpu); } -static int setup_broadcast_cpuhp_notify (struct notifier_block *n, -unsigned long action,void *hcpu) +static int cpu_hotplug_notify (struct notifier_block *n, +unsigned long action,void *hcpu) {int hotcpu = (unsigned long )hcpu; +struct cpuidle_device *dev;switch (action &0xf ) {case CPU_ONLINE : -smp_call_function_single (hotcpu, __setup_broadcast_timer, - (void *)true,1 ); + +if (lapic_timer_reliable_states !=LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE ) +smp_call_function_single (hotcpu, __setup_broadcast_timer, + (void *)true,1 ); + +/* +* Some systems can hotplug a cpu at runtime after +* the kernel has booted, we have to initialize the +* driver in this case +*/ + dev =per_cpu_ptr (intel_idle_cpuidle_devices, hotcpu); +if (!dev->registered) +intel_idle_cpu_init (hotcpu); +break ; }return NOTIFY_OK ; } -static struct notifier_block setup_broadcast_notifier = { - .notifier_call = setup_broadcast_cpuhp_notify, +static struct notifier_block cpu_hotplug_notifier = { + .notifier_call = cpu_hotplug_notify, };static void auto_demotion_disable (void *dummy)@@ -405,10 +419,10 @@ static int intel_idle_probe(void)if (boot_cpu_has (X86_FEATURE_ARAT ))/* Always Reliable APIC Timer */ lapic_timer_reliable_states =LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE ; -else { +else on_each_cpu (__setup_broadcast_timer, (void *)true,1 ); -register_cpu_notifier (&setup_broadcast_notifier); - } + +register_cpu_notifier (&cpu_hotplug_notifier);pr_debug (PREFIX "v" INTEL_IDLE_VERSION " model 0x%X\n" , boot_cpu_data.x86_model);@@ -494,7 +508,7 @@ static int intel_idle_cpuidle_driver_init(void)* allocate, initialize, register cpuidle_devices * @cpu: cpu/core to initialize */ -int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) +static int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) {int cstate;struct cpuidle_device *dev;@@ -539,7 +553,6 @@ int intel_idle_cpu_init(int cpu)return 0 ; } -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (intel_idle_cpu_init);static int __init intel_idle_init (void ) {@@ -581,10 +594,10 @@ static void __exit intel_idle_exit(void)intel_idle_cpuidle_devices_uninit ();cpuidle_unregister_driver (&intel_idle_driver); -if (lapic_timer_reliable_states !=LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE ) { + +if (lapic_timer_reliable_states !=LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE )on_each_cpu (__setup_broadcast_timer, (void *)false,1 ); -unregister_cpu_notifier (&setup_broadcast_notifier); - } +unregister_cpu_notifier (&cpu_hotplug_notifier);return ; }include/linux/cpuidle.h +0
-7@@ -213,14 +213,7 @@ struct cpuidle_governor {extern int cpuidle_register_governor (struct cpuidle_governor *gov);extern void cpuidle_unregister_governor (struct cpuidle_governor *gov); -#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_IDLE -extern int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu);#else -static inline int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) {return -1 ; } -#endif - -#else -static inline int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) {return -1 ; }static inline int cpuidle_register_governor (struct cpuidle_governor *gov) {return 0 ;}
Signature · 5 lines
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Re: [PATCH v2] acpi: intel_idle : break dependency between modules
Quoted 26 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Quoted 11 lines · Rafael J. Wysocki
Quoted 10 lines · Daniel Lezcano
When the system is booted with some cpus offline, the idle driver is not initialized. When a cpu is set online, the acpi code call the intel idle init function. Unfortunately this code introduce a dependency between
intel_idleand acpi.This patch is intended to remove this dependency by using the notifier of
intel_idle. This patch has the benefit of encapsulating theintel_idledriver and remove some exported functions.Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]>This one looks good to me too.
Thanks for the review Rafael.
Quoted 1 line
Len, are you going to take it?
Rafael, Len,
After the discussion [1], I put in place a tree at:
Quoted 7 lines
ssh://git.linaro.org/srv/git.linaro.org/git/people/dlezcano/cpuidle-next.git #cpuidle-next
I proposed this tree to group the cpuidle modifications and prevent the last minutes conflict when Len will apply them.
I also included the tree into linux-next for wider testing.
I can't speak for Len, but I'm not sure he'll like this.
Anyway, you seem to have the same material as Len in that tree, won't there be any conflicts in linux-next?
Rafael
Re: [PATCH v2] acpi: intel_idle : break dependency between modules
Quoted 30 lines · Rafael J. Wysocki
Quoted 29 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Quoted 11 lines · Rafael J. Wysocki
Quoted 10 lines · Daniel Lezcano
When the system is booted with some cpus offline, the idle driver is not initialized. When a cpu is set online, the acpi code call the intel idle init function. Unfortunately this code introduce a dependency between
intel_idleand acpi.This patch is intended to remove this dependency by using the notifier of
intel_idle. This patch has the benefit of encapsulating theintel_idledriver and remove some exported functions.Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]>This one looks good to me too.
Thanks for the review Rafael.
Quoted 1 line
Len, are you going to take it?
Rafael, Len,
After the discussion [1], I put in place a tree at:
ssh://git.linaro.org/srv/git.linaro.org/git/people/dlezcano/cpuidle-next.git #cpuidle-next
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
I proposed this tree to group the cpuidle modifications and prevent the last minutes conflict when Len will apply them.
I also included the tree into linux-next for wider testing.
I can't speak for Len, but I'm not sure he'll like this.
I sent the proposition a week ago and Len was Cc'ed. I guess he is very busy but the problem we are facing is there are a lot of pending modifications for cpuidle because of some new architecture (like the big.LITTLE and tegra3). Colin's patchset is one of them.
Quoted 2 lines
Anyway, you seem to have the same material as Len in that tree, won't there be any conflicts in linux-next?
At the first glance no, until he merge the patches we sent. As I already said the purpose is to help to consolidate the patches sent for cpuidle by acting as a proxy.
I hope that helps.
Thanks
-- Daniel
Signature · 5 lines
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] acpi: intel_idle : break dependency between modules
In reply to Daniel LezcanoQuoted 9 lines · Daniel Lezcano
When the system is booted with some cpus offline, the idle driver is not initialized. When a cpu is set online, the acpi code call the intel idle init function. Unfortunately this code introduce a dependency between
intel_idleand acpi.This patch is intended to remove this dependency by using the notifier of
intel_idle. In order to make it work, the notifier must be initialized in the right order, acpi thenintel_idle. This is done in theMakefile.
There is a much better way of doing this. See below.
Quoted 4 lines
This patch has the benefit of
encapsulating theintel_idledriver and remove some exported functions.
Nice :)
Quoted 13 lines
Signed-off-by Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]>--- drivers/Makefile | 3 ++- drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 7 ------- drivers/idle/intel_idle.c | 22 ++++++++++++++-------- include/linux/cpuidle.h | 7 ------- 4 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)drivers/Makefile +0
-0
drivers/Makefile obj-$(CONFIG_PCI) += pci/ · line 20
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/Makefile +2
-1@@ -12,8 +12,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PCI) += pci/ obj-$(CONFIG_PARISC) += parisc/ obj-$(CONFIG_RAPIDIO) += rapidio/ obj-y += video/ -obj-y += idle/ +# acpi must come before idle for initialization obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI) += acpi/ +obj-y += idle/ obj-$(CONFIG_SFI) += sfi/ # PnP must come after ACPI since it will eventually need to check if acpi # was used and do nothing if so
OK, so all you are trying to do here is ensure that the intel idle related notifier runs _after_ the acpi related one. To do that, you don't have to touch the Makefiles at all! Just use the appropriate priorities for the notifiers (default is 0), to handle the dependency. You can find some examples in kernel/ sched/core.c. And while doing that you might want to add a separate notifier in intel idle rather than piggy back on the existing timer related one (because you are handling a dependency here, which might not apply to timers, or even worse, cause unwanted side-effects, if any).
I'll take a look at the rest of the patch tomorrow. I think Thomas has already pointed out the rest of the issues.
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
Quoted 123 lines
drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c +0
-7@@ -427,18 +427,11 @@ static int acpi_cpu_soft_notify(struct notifier_block *nfb,* Initialize missing things */ if (pr->flags.need_hotplug_init) { -struct cpuidle_driver *idle_driver = -cpuidle_get_driver (); -printk (KERN_INFO "Will online and init hotplugged " "CPU: %d\n" , pr->id);WARN (acpi_processor_start (pr),"Failed to start CPU:" " %d\n" , pr->id); pr->flags.need_hotplug_init =0 ; -if (idle_driver && !strcmp (idle_driver->name, -"intel_idle" )) { -intel_idle_cpu_init (pr->id); - }/* Normal CPU soft online event */ }else {acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed (pr,0 );drivers/idle/intel_idle.c +14
-8@@ -96,6 +96,7 @@ static const struct idle_cpu *icpu;static struct cpuidle_device __percpu *intel_idle_cpuidle_devices;static int intel_idle (struct cpuidle_device *dev,struct cpuidle_driver *drv,int index); +static int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu);static struct cpuidle_state *cpuidle_state_table;@@ -302,22 +303,28 @@ static void __setup_broadcast_timer(void *arg)clockevents_notify (reason, &cpu); } -static int setup_broadcast_cpuhp_notify (struct notifier_block *n, -unsigned long action,void *hcpu) +static int cpu_hotplug_notify (struct notifier_block *n, +unsigned long action,void *hcpu) {int hotcpu = (unsigned long )hcpu; +struct cpuidle_device *dev;switch (action &0xf ) {case CPU_ONLINE :smp_call_function_single (hotcpu, __setup_broadcast_timer, (void *)true,1 ); + + dev =per_cpu_ptr (intel_idle_cpuidle_devices, hotcpu); +if (!dev->registered) +intel_idle_cpu_init (hotcpu); +break ; }return NOTIFY_OK ; } -static struct notifier_block setup_broadcast_notifier = { - .notifier_call = setup_broadcast_cpuhp_notify, +static struct notifier_block cpu_hotplug_notifier = { + .notifier_call = cpu_hotplug_notify, };static void auto_demotion_disable (void *dummy)@@ -407,7 +414,7 @@ static int intel_idle_probe(void) lapic_timer_reliable_states =LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE ; else {on_each_cpu (__setup_broadcast_timer, (void *)true,1 ); -register_cpu_notifier (&setup_broadcast_notifier); +register_cpu_notifier (&cpu_hotplug_notifier); } pr_debug(PREFIX "v" INTEL_IDLE_VERSION@@ -494,7 +501,7 @@ static int intel_idle_cpuidle_driver_init(void)* allocate, initialize, register cpuidle_devices * @cpu: cpu/core to initialize */ -int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) +static int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) {int cstate;struct cpuidle_device *dev;@@ -539,7 +546,6 @@ int intel_idle_cpu_init(int cpu)return 0 ; } -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (intel_idle_cpu_init);static int __init intel_idle_init (void ) {@@ -583,7 +589,7 @@ static void __exit intel_idle_exit(void)if (lapic_timer_reliable_states !=LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE ) {on_each_cpu (__setup_broadcast_timer, (void *)false,1 ); -unregister_cpu_notifier (&setup_broadcast_notifier); +unregister_cpu_notifier (&cpu_hotplug_notifier); }return ;include/linux/cpuidle.h +0
-7@@ -213,14 +213,7 @@ struct cpuidle_governor {extern int cpuidle_register_governor (struct cpuidle_governor *gov);extern void cpuidle_unregister_governor (struct cpuidle_governor *gov); -#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_IDLE -extern int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu);#else -static inline int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) {return -1 ; } -#endif - -#else -static inline int intel_idle_cpu_init (int cpu) {return -1 ; }static inline int cpuidle_register_governor (struct cpuidle_governor *gov) {return 0 ;}
Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] acpi: intel_idle : break dependency between modules
Quoted 38 lines · Srivatsa S. Bhat
Quoted 9 lines · Daniel Lezcano
When the system is booted with some cpus offline, the idle driver is not initialized. When a cpu is set online, the acpi code call the intel idle init function. Unfortunately this code introduce a dependency between
intel_idleand acpi.This patch is intended to remove this dependency by using the notifier of
intel_idle. In order to make it work, the notifier must be initialized in the right order, acpi thenintel_idle. This is done in theMakefile.There is a much better way of doing this. See below.
Quoted 4 lines
This patch has the benefit of
encapsulating theintel_idledriver and remove some exported functions.Nice :)
Quoted 18 lines
Signed-off-by Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]>--- drivers/Makefile | 3 ++- drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 7 ------- drivers/idle/intel_idle.c | 22 ++++++++++++++-------- include/linux/cpuidle.h | 7 ------- 4 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)drivers/Makefile +1
-1@@ -12,8 +12,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PCI) += pci/ obj-$(CONFIG_PARISC) += parisc/ obj-$(CONFIG_RAPIDIO) += rapidio/ obj-y += video/ -obj-y += idle/ +# acpi must come before idle for initialization
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/Makefile obj-$(CONFIG_PCI) += pci/ · line 20
Quoted 5 lines
drivers/Makefile +1
-0obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI) += acpi/ +obj-y += idle/ obj-$(CONFIG_SFI) += sfi/ # PnP must come after ACPI since it will eventually need to check if acpi # was used and do nothing if soOK, so all you are trying to do here is ensure that the intel idle related notifier runs _after_ the acpi related one.
I might oversee something, if you have concerns, please point me to it. If it's all about keeping the order of excuting these functions:
acpi_processor_start(pr)
and
intel_idle_cpu_init()
There should be no need for it. Intel idle is pretty separated.
Thomas
Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] acpi: intel_idle : break dependency between modules
Quoted 47 lines · Thomas Renninger
Quoted 38 lines · Srivatsa S. Bhat
Quoted 9 lines · Daniel Lezcano
When the system is booted with some cpus offline, the idle driver is not initialized. When a cpu is set online, the acpi code call the intel idle init function. Unfortunately this code introduce a dependency between
intel_idleand acpi.This patch is intended to remove this dependency by using the notifier of
intel_idle. In order to make it work, the notifier must be initialized in the right order, acpi thenintel_idle. This is done in theMakefile.There is a much better way of doing this. See below.
Quoted 4 lines
This patch has the benefit of
encapsulating theintel_idledriver and remove some exported functions.Nice :)
Quoted 18 lines
Signed-off-by Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]>--- drivers/Makefile | 3 ++- drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 7 ------- drivers/idle/intel_idle.c | 22 ++++++++++++++-------- include/linux/cpuidle.h | 7 ------- 4 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)drivers/Makefile +1
-1@@ -12,8 +12,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PCI) += pci/ obj-$(CONFIG_PARISC) += parisc/ obj-$(CONFIG_RAPIDIO) += rapidio/ obj-y += video/ -obj-y += idle/ +# acpi must come before idle for initializationQuoted 8 lines
drivers/Makefile obj-$(CONFIG_PCI) += pci/ · line 20
Quoted 5 lines
drivers/Makefile +1
-0obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI) += acpi/ +obj-y += idle/ obj-$(CONFIG_SFI) += sfi/ # PnP must come after ACPI since it will eventually need to check if acpi # was used and do nothing if soOK, so all you are trying to do here is ensure that the intel idle related notifier runs _after_ the acpi related one.
Quoted 7 lines
I might oversee something, if you have concerns, please point me to it. If it's all about keeping the order of excuting these functions:
acpi_processor_start(pr)
and
intel_idle_cpu_init()
There should be no need for it. Intel idle is pretty separated.
I digged through the code a bit, and even I couldn't find any reason why there should be a dependency between the two events.
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] acpi, cpuidle: Register with cpuidle even if cpu is onlined after boot (beyond maxcpus)
In reply to Daniel LezcanoQuoted 72 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Quoted 71 lines · Srivatsa S. Bhat
Quoted 69 lines · Daniel Lezcano
Quoted 59 lines · Thomas Renninger
Quoted 28 lines · Srivatsa S. Bhat
Quoted 26 lines · Thomas Renninger
Quoted 11 lines · Srivatsa S. Bhat
Daniel Lezcano noticed that after booting with maxcpus=X, if we online the remaining cpus by writing: echo 1 >
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuY/online, then for the newly onlined cpus, the cpuidle directory is not found under/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuY.Partly, the reason for this is that acpi restricts the initialization to cpus within the maxcpus limit. (See commit 75cbfb9 "ACPI: Do not try to set up acpi processor stuff on cores exceeding maxcpus="). The maxcpus= kernel parameter is used to restrict the number of cpus brought up during boot. That doesn't mean that we should hard restrict the bring up of the remaining cpus later on.
Sorry, but IMO it exaclty does mean that (adding more general lists for further comments).
If you can online more cores than maxcpus= via sysfs, this sounds like a bug. Not the other way around.
Compare with
Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt:
maxcpus= [SMP] Maximum number of processors that an SMP kernel
should make use of. maxcpus=n : n >= 0 limits the kernel to using 'n' processors. n=0 is a special case, it is equivalent to "nosmp", which also disables the IO APIC.Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
Chances that you run into more problems are high.
Right, I agree on that. So, IMHO, maxcpus=X doesn't mean that the kernel must and should forbid any new cpus from coming online, but in the interest of avoiding problems/complications in some obscure paths, I guess it makes sense to avoid onlining new cpus beyond maxcpus.
Yep, for such reasons:
- That nobody realizes this to be useful and makes use of it in a productive environment
- If I see maxcpus=X in a bugreport's dmesg command line,
I want to be sure that's true.
- To enforce that things work as documentedWow, after looking a bit into this I found (
Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt):maxcpus=n Restrict boot time cpus to n. Say if you have 4 cpus, using
maxcpus=2 will only boot 2. You can choose to bring the other cpus later online, read FAQ's for more info.Looks like someone already documented this (IMO broken) behavior. I didn't find further info in the FAQs.
Quoted 4 lines
In any case, I was just trying to see why the simple removal of the
setup_max_cpuscheck inacpi_processor_add()wasn't enough to expose the cpuidle directories under the new cpus.. and while debugging that, I came up with this patch. I don't mind if this doesn't get picked up.Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Right, the usecase of why somebody would like to online new cpus beyond maxcpus doesn't look all that solid anyway. So I am OK with leaving the code as it is now.
In the end this is a debug option, I expect everybody is aware of that. Yep, let's just leave it...
In this case, let's remove the
intel_idle_cpu_initstuff inacpi_cpu_soft_notify, no ?
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Why? And how would that help? The
intel_idle_cpu_init()call is essential ifintel_idledriver is being used instead of acpi idle.AFAIU, this code is not called after onlining a cpu greater than maxcpus and Thomas thinks that system with cpu hotplug at runtime are not sold.
No, the point that Thomas is making is, if you boot with maxcpus=X, it looks odd if you want to online more cpus later on. And allowing that is scary because those code paths may not be well-tested or even designed to do that.
But one thing is crystal clear about the maxcpus semantics: if you say maxcpus=X while booting, the kernel must not even *attempt* to initialize *anything* for the remaining cpus, as far as possible. For all you know, the user might have discovered a problem (which will cause a crash during init) and hence is setting maxcpus to a smaller value than available, to just be able to still have a usable system.
Quoted 4 lines
The problem I see with this code is acpi and intel-idle are tied together now. I would like to break this dependency and use the notifier to handle the cpu hotplug directly in intel-idle.
Ok, that's a different problem, unrelated to maxcpus. And in that context, what you are proposing (breaking that dependency) looks good to me.
Quoted 10 lines
It is hard to test my patch as there is not such system and maxcpus is not correctly handled here. I can use your patch to test my patch but anyway ... I am just asking if that would make sense to remove this portion of code instead :)
If we want to keep this code untouched, I can try my patch and maybe Thomas will agreed to test it also on a cpu-online-runtime-system if he has one.
Again, to reiterate, we all agree that we can offline/online existing cpus on a running system. We can also (perhaps) do physical cpu hotplug, and we want to support it in Linux, if such hardware exists. What doesn't really make much sense is a "usecase" where you boot the kernel with maxcpus=X and then try to online more cpus than that. Saying no to that looks safe and is preferred, than trying to "handle" it, because we cannot guarantee that it will work in all cases anyway.
But in a separate context (unrelated to maxcpus), moving the intel idle stuff into intel idle code (from acpi idle) looks like a sensible thing to do. But then, dependency between the two must be handled properly (ie., low-level acpi init must happen first, followed by intel idle init, for a hotplugged cpu).
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat