Re: [PATCH] CPU hotplug returns CPUs to SAL

From: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj_at_intel.com>
Date: 2005-02-10 06:26:29
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 11:19:43AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Hi Ashok,
> 
>    Sorry I missed your patch.  Your assembly is certainly cleaner than
> mine.  We seem to have several differences in the state that actually
> gets saved and restored though.  For instance, I see you're saving k0,

Section 3.2.4 seemed to indicate that SAL versions executing IA32 BIOS code
would have the IA32 I/O PORT block. That prompted me to save that even though 
it was listed as scratch in the following section. (Maybe just required for
BSP?)


> which is listed as scratch in the spec, but none of the fp, predicate,
> branch registers, region registers, or preserved general registers.
> Shouldn't a few more of those be preserved under "standard calling

True. When i was testing, i ran into an issue with restoring region registers
Dont remember quite what it was, that prompted me to not do it for
that round of testing. It didnt seem to affect anything and appeared to
work fine on the tiger4 systems. 

That result may not be sufficient for other platforms, so yes, we must 
save those others that i missed in the first round. Iam waiting for my 
bk to syncup, i will post the revised patch on top of keith's mca fixes soon.

I noticed you are not preserving idle threads for re-use, there will be leaks
otherwise, since you will be re-creating new threads in __cpu_up() otherwise.
> conventions"?  Also, what do you think about treating the saved state as
> a stack?  This could eventually allow the BSP to be sent off spinning in
> SAL.  Thanks,

Technically the same method should work for BSP as well, but since BSP ran 
the bootloader, unless he saves it and exposes it in a standard way to OS
we cannot restore. (Agreed very UGLY)

Longer term, it would be ideal to have a SAL call, and hope SAL would preserve
anything necessary for this calling cpu, and so its not the responsibility
of OS to preserve every register state. THen we dont need to have a distinction
between AP/BSP as well.
> 
> 	Alex
> 
> On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 09:53 -0800, Ashok Raj wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 09:40:28AM -0800, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Alex
> > 
> > In fact i did submit a patch for this about a month ago. I was sharing some
> > code from mca side for tlb purge, and this code has been in the swamp for 
> > several weeks now. I hope they are settled now, and  i will re submit my 
> > patches once again.
> > 
> > link from old post
> > 
> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-ia64&m=110239954713260&w=2
> > 
> > I will repost to match whats there in tony-'s test/release tree asap.
> > 
> > ashok
> > > 
> > >        When  a  CPU  is sent offline, it currently goes into a dummy spin
> > >    loop
> > >    and  pretends  to be gone.  This patch returns the CPU back to SAL via
> > >    the
> > >    mechanism described in the SAL spec.  The state of secondary CPUs is
> > >    saved off to a dynamically allocated stack for use on return to SAL.
> > >    I've munged the _start code in head.S to avoid trampling over some of
> > >    the preserved registers before we get a chance to save them.  The
> > >    assembly could probably use some optimizations, but these are hardly
> > >    performance paths.  It seems to work reliably on zx1 and sx1000 boxes,
> > >    but needs some exposure on others.  Patch against current bk.  Thanks,
> > > 
> > >            Alex
> 
> -- 
> Alex Williamson                             HP Linux & Open Source Lab
> 

-- 
Cheers,
Ashok Raj
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Wed Feb 9 14:26:40 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:35 EST