Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] PowerPC/mpc85xx: Add hotplug support on E6500 cores | From | Scott Wood <> | Date | Thu, 6 Aug 2015 00:44:34 -0500 |
| |
On Thu, 2015-08-06 at 12:32 +0800, Chenhui Zhao wrote: > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> > wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-08-05 at 19:08 +0800, Chenhui Zhao wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> > > > wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 17:20 +0800, b29983@freescale.comwrote: > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * If both threads are offline, reset core to > > > start. > > > > > + * When core is up, Thread 0 always gets up > > > first, > > > > > + * so bind the current logical cpu with Thread 0. > > > > > + */ > > > > > + if (hw_cpu != cpu_first_thread_sibling(hw_cpu)) { > > > > > + int hw_cpu1, hw_cpu2; > > > > > + > > > > > + hw_cpu1 = > > > get_hard_smp_processor_id(primary); > > > > > + hw_cpu2 = > > > get_hard_smp_processor_id(primary + > > > > > 1); > > > > > + set_hard_smp_processor_id(primary, > > > hw_cpu2); > > > > > + set_hard_smp_processor_id(primary + 1, > > > > > hw_cpu1); > > > > > + /* get new physical cpu id */ > > > > > + hw_cpu = get_hard_smp_processor_id(nr); > > > > > > > > NACK as discussed in http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/454944/ > > > > > > > > -Scott > > > > > > You said, > > > > > > There's no need for this. I have booting from a thread1, and > > > having > > > it > > > kick its thread0, working locally without messing with the > > > hwid/cpu > > > mapping. > > > > > > I still have questions here. After a core reset, how can you boot > > > Thread1 > > > of the core first. As I know, Thread0 boots up first by default. > > > > So the issue isn't that thread1 comes up first, but that you *want* > > thread1 > > to come up first and it won't. I don't think this remapping is an > > acceptable > > answer, though. Instead, if you need only thread1 to come up, start > > the > > core, have thread0 start thread1, and then send thread0 into whatever > > waiting > > state it would be in if thread1 had never been offlined. > > > > -Scott > > Remapping is a concise solution. what's the harm of it? > Keeping things simple is good in my opinion.
Remapping is not simple. Remapping will make debugging more complicated (I see an oops on CPU <n>, which CPU's registers do I dump in the debugger?), could expose bugs where smp_processor_id() is used where hard_smp_processor_id() is needed, etc.
Having thread0 start thread1 and then go wherever it would have gone if thread1 were up the whole time is much more straightforward.
-Scott
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |