Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [tip:smp/hotplug] cpu/hotplug: Abort disabling secondary CPUs if wakeup is pending | Date | Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:06:44 +0100 |
| |
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> writes: > From the commit message, it makes sense to add the pm_wakeup_pending() > check if freeze_secondary_cpus() is used for system suspend. However, > freeze_secondary_cpus() is also used in kexec path on arm64:
Bah!
> kernel_kexec(): > machine_shutdown(): > disable_nonboot_cpus(): > freeze_secondary_cpus() > > , so I wonder whether the pm_wakeup_pending() makes sense in this > situation? Because IIUC, in this case we want to reboot the system > regardlessly, the pm_wakeup_pending() checking seems to be inappropriate > then.
Fix below.
Thanks,
tglx
8<------------
--- a/include/linux/cpu.h +++ b/include/linux/cpu.h @@ -133,12 +133,18 @@ static inline void get_online_cpus(void) static inline void put_online_cpus(void) { cpus_read_unlock(); } #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP_SMP -extern int freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary); +int __freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary, bool suspend); +static inline int freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary) +{ + return __freeze_secondary_cpus(primary, true); +} + static inline int disable_nonboot_cpus(void) { - return freeze_secondary_cpus(0); + return __freeze_secondary_cpus(0, false); } -extern void enable_nonboot_cpus(void); + +void enable_nonboot_cpus(void); static inline int suspend_disable_secondary_cpus(void) { --- a/kernel/cpu.c +++ b/kernel/cpu.c @@ -1200,7 +1200,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpu_up); #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP_SMP static cpumask_var_t frozen_cpus; -int freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary) +int __freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary, bool suspend) { int cpu, error = 0; @@ -1225,7 +1225,7 @@ int freeze_secondary_cpus(int primary) if (cpu == primary) continue; - if (pm_wakeup_pending()) { + if (suspend && pm_wakeup_pending()) { pr_info("Wakeup pending. Abort CPU freeze\n"); error = -EBUSY; break;
| |