LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: "Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Alexander Deucher <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>,
	Ray Huang <Ray.Huang@amd.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
	<x86@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Robert Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>,
	Erik Kaneda <erik.kaneda@intel.com>,
	"open list:SUSPEND TO RAM" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:ACPI" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:ACPI COMPONENT ARCHITECTURE (ACPICA)"
	<devel@acpica.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/acpi: Don't add CPUs that are not online capable
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 20:51:26 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0ibUsBCoaz=BRpe42TuiVvSy68wj4VKs+H3Q6uKxCycJQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b116a84b-c099-5bf4-6c25-f62cea856f45@amd.com>

Sorry for the delay.

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 8:41 PM Limonciello, Mario
<mario.limonciello@amd.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/16/2021 09:04, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 6:19 PM Mario Limonciello
> > <mario.limonciello@amd.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> A number of systems are showing "hotplug capable" CPUs when they
> >> are not really hotpluggable.  This is because the MADT has extra
> >> CPU entries to support different CPUs that may be inserted into
> >> the socket with different numbers of cores.
> >>
> >> Starting with ACPI 6.3 the spec has an Online Capable bit in the
> >> MADT used to determine whether or not a CPU is hotplug capable
> >> when the enabled bit is not set.
> >>
> >> Link: https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fuefi.org%2Fhtmlspecs%2FACPI_Spec_6_4_html%2F05_ACPI_Software_Programming_Model%2FACPI_Software_Programming_Model.html%3F%23local-apic-flags&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com%7Ce6a384bf25274f88b49508d960bee40a%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637647195281368169%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=3MWJ5NcRVJ7TP4tJH6uQRbqfZKSqe5RHjGxGbQEP13E%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
> >> ---
> >>   arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c | 10 ++++++++++
> >>   include/acpi/actbl2.h       |  1 +
> >>   2 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> Changes from v1->v2:
> >>   * Check the revision field in MADT to determine if it matches the
> >>     bump from ACPI 6.3 as suggested by Hanjun Guo
> >>   * Update description
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> >> index e55e0c1fad8c..bfa69a5c9c0b 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> >> @@ -53,6 +53,8 @@ int acpi_ioapic;
> >>   int acpi_strict;
> >>   int acpi_disable_cmcff;
> >>
> >> +bool acpi_support_online_capable;
> >
> > Missing static?
>
> Ack, thanks.
>
> >
> >> +
> >>   /* ACPI SCI override configuration */
> >>   u8 acpi_sci_flags __initdata;
> >>   u32 acpi_sci_override_gsi __initdata = INVALID_ACPI_IRQ;
> >> @@ -138,6 +140,8 @@ static int __init acpi_parse_madt(struct acpi_table_header *table)
> >>
> >>                  pr_debug("Local APIC address 0x%08x\n", madt->address);
> >>          }
> >> +       if (madt->header.revision >= 5)
> >> +               acpi_support_online_capable = true;
> >>
> >>          default_acpi_madt_oem_check(madt->header.oem_id,
> >>                                      madt->header.oem_table_id);
> >> @@ -239,6 +243,12 @@ acpi_parse_lapic(union acpi_subtable_headers * header, const unsigned long end)
> >>          if (processor->id == 0xff)
> >>                  return 0;
> >>
> >> +       /* don't register processors that can not be onlined */
> >> +       if (acpi_support_online_capable &&
> >> +           !(processor->lapic_flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED) &&
> >> +           !(processor->lapic_flags & ACPI_MADT_ONLINE_CAPABLE))
> >> +               return 0;
> >> +
> >>          /*
> >>           * We need to register disabled CPU as well to permit
> >>           * counting disabled CPUs. This allows us to size
> >> diff --git a/include/acpi/actbl2.h b/include/acpi/actbl2.h
> >> index 2069ac38a4e2..fae45e383987 100644
> >> --- a/include/acpi/actbl2.h
> >> +++ b/include/acpi/actbl2.h
> >
> > The one below is an ACPICA change and I'd prefer it to be integrated
> > via the upstream ACPICA.
> >
> > Could you prepare an ACPICA pull request for just the bit below and
> > send it via GitHub?
>
> Sure thing.
> http://github.com/acpica/acpica/pull/708/
>
> They said they would take it later this month or next month.
>
> Given that, how do you want to proceed with the first part of this?
>
> Should I send a 2 patch series that will add the MADT bit to actbl2.h in
> advance of their next release, or should I wait to resubmit until after
> their next release and you've brought it into your tree?

If you want this to go into 5.15, I would suggest going for the first option.

Knowing that the ACPICA patch is going to reach upstream at one point,
I can put it into Linux in advance.

> >
> >> @@ -808,6 +808,7 @@ struct acpi_madt_multiproc_wakeup_mailbox {
> >>   /* MADT Local APIC flags */
> >>
> >>   #define ACPI_MADT_ENABLED           (1)        /* 00: Processor is usable if set */
> >> +#define ACPI_MADT_ONLINE_CAPABLE    (2)        /* 01: System HW supports enabling processor at runtime */
> >>
> >>   /* MADT MPS INTI flags (inti_flags) */
> >>
> >> --
>

      reply	other threads:[~2021-08-31 18:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-13 16:18 Mario Limonciello
2021-08-16 14:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-08-17 18:41   ` Limonciello, Mario
2021-08-31 18:51     ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAJZ5v0ibUsBCoaz=BRpe42TuiVvSy68wj4VKs+H3Q6uKxCycJQ@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=Alexander.Deucher@amd.com \
    --cc=Ray.Huang@amd.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=devel@acpica.org \
    --cc=erik.kaneda@intel.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=len.brown@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mario.limonciello@amd.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=robert.moore@intel.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v2] x86/acpi: Don'\''t add CPUs that are not online capable' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).