On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 07:26:57PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 7:20 PM Russell King (Oracle) > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 06:43:59PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 5:36 PM Russell King (Oracle) > > > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 05:15:54PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 2:28 PM Russell King (Oracle) > > > > > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 06:00:13PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 21:35:16 +0100 > > > > > > > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 1:49 PM Russell King <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The code behind ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU allows a not-present CPU to become > > > > > > > > > present. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This isn't the only use of HOTPLUG_CPU. On arm64 and riscv > > > > > > > > > CPUs can be taken offline as a power saving measure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But still there is the case in which a non-present CPU can become > > > > > > > > present, isn't it there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not yet defined by the architectures (and I'm assuming it probably never will be). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The original proposal we took to ARM was to do exactly that - they pushed > > > > > > > back hard on the basis there was no architecturally safe way to implement it. > > > > > > > Too much of the ARM arch has to exist from the start of time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/cbaa6d68-6143-e010-5f3c-ec62f879ad95@xxxxxxx/ > > > > > > > is one of the relevant threads of the kernel side of that discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not to put specific words into the ARM architects mouths, but the > > > > > > > short description is that there is currently no demand for working > > > > > > > out how to make physical CPU hotplug possible, as such they will not > > > > > > > provide an architecturally compliant way to do it for virtual CPU hotplug and > > > > > > > another means is needed (which is why this series doesn't use the present bit > > > > > > > for that purpose and we have the Online capable bit in MADT/GICC) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was a 'fun' dance of several years to get to that clarification. > > > > > > > As another fun fact, the same is defined for x86, but I don't think > > > > > > > anyone has used it yet (GICC for ARM has an online capable bit in the flags to > > > > > > > enable this, which was remarkably similar to the online capable bit in the > > > > > > > flags of the Local APIC entries as added fairly recently). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On arm64 an offline CPU may be disabled by firmware, preventing it from > > > > > > > > > being brought back online, but it remains present throughout. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Adding code to prevent user-space trying to online these disabled CPUs > > > > > > > > > needs some additional terminology. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rename the Kconfig symbol CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG_PRESENT_CPU to reflect > > > > > > > > > that it makes possible CPUs present. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Honestly, I don't think that this change is necessary or even useful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whilst it's an attempt to avoid future confusion, the rename is > > > > > > > not something I really care about so my advice to Russell is drop > > > > > > > it unless you are attached to it! > > > > > > > > > > > > While I agree that it isn't a necessity, I don't fully agree that it > > > > > > isn't useful. > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the issues will be that while Arm64 will support hotplug vCPU, > > > > > > it won't be setting ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU because it doesn't support > > > > > > the present bit changing. So I can see why James decided to rename > > > > > > it - because with Arm64's hotplug vCPU, the idea that ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU > > > > > > somehow enables hotplug CPU support is now no longer true. > > > > > > > > > > > > Keeping it as ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU makes the code less obvious, because it > > > > > > leads one to assume that it ought to be enabled for Arm64's > > > > > > implementatinon, and that could well cause issues in the future if > > > > > > people make the assumption that "ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU" means hotplug CPU > > > > > > is supported in ACPI. It doesn't anymore. > > > > > > > > > > On x86 there is no confusion AFAICS. It's always meant "as long as > > > > > the platform supports it". > > > > > > > > That's x86, which supports physical CPU hotplug. We're introducing > > > > support for Arm64 here which doesn't support physical CPU hotplug. > > > > > > > > ACPI-based Physical Virtual > > > > Arch HOTPLUG_CPU ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU Hotplug Hotplug Hotplug > > > > Arm64 Y N Y N Y > > > > x86 Y Y Y Y Y > > > > > > > > So ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU becomes totally misnamed with the introduction > > > > of hotplug on Arm64. > > > > > > > > If we want to just look at stuff from an x86 perspective, then yes, > > > > it remains correct to call it ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU. It isn't correct as > > > > soon as we add Arm64, as I already said. > > > > > > And if you rename it, it becomes less confusing for ARM64, but more > > > confusing for x86, which basically is my point. > > > > > > IMO "hotplug" covers both cases well enough and "hotplug present" is > > > only accurate for one of them. > > > > > > > And honestly, a two line quip to my reasoned argument is not IMHO > > > > an acceptable reply. > > > > > > Well, I'm not even sure how to respond to this ... > > > > The above explanation you give would have been useful... > > > > I don't see how "hotplug" covers both cases. As I've tried to point > > out many times now, ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU is N for Arm64, yet it supports > > ACPI based hotplug. How does ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU cover Arm64 if it's > > N there? > > But IIUC this change is preliminary for changing it (or equivalent > option with a different name) to Y, isn't it? No. As I keep saying, ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU ends up N on Arm64 even when it supports hotplug CPU via ACPI. Even with the full Arm64 patch set here, under arch/ we still only have: arch/loongarch/Kconfig: select ACPI_HOTPLUG_PRESENT_CPU if ACPI_PROCESSOR && HOTPLUG_CPU arch/x86/Kconfig: select ACPI_HOTPLUG_PRESENT_CPU if ACPI_PROCESSOR && HOTPLUG_CPU To say it yet again, ACPI_HOTPLUG_(PRESENT_)CPU is *never* set on Arm64. > > IMHO it totally doesn't, and moreover, it goes against what > > one would logically expect - and this is why I have a problem with > > your effective NAK for this change. I believe you are basically > > wrong on this for the reasons I've given - that ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU > > will be N for Arm64 despite it supporting ACPI-based CPU hotplug. > > So I still have to understand how renaming it for all architectures > (including x86) is supposed to help. > > It will still be the same option under a different name. How does > that change things technically? Do you think that it makes any sense to have support for ACPI-based hotplug CPU *and* having it functional with a configuration symbol named "ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU" to be set to N ? That's essentially what you are advocating for... -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
