On 2019/10/17 21:54, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 09:26:15PM +0800, Yunfeng Ye wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2019/10/16 23:32, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 12:45:16PM +0800, Yunfeng Ye wrote:
>>>> If psci_ops.affinity_info() fails, it will sleep 10ms, which will not
>>>> take so long in the right case. Use usleep_range() instead of msleep(),
>>>> reduce the waiting time, and give a chance to busy wait before sleep.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> V1->V2:
>>>> - use usleep_range() instead of udelay() after waiting for a while
>>>>
>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
>>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c
>>>> index c9f72b2..99b3122 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c
>>>> @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ static void cpu_psci_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
>>>> static int cpu_psci_cpu_kill(unsigned int cpu)
>>>> {
>>>> int err, i;
>>>> + unsigned long timeout;
>>>>
>>>> if (!psci_ops.affinity_info)
>>>> return 0;
>>>> @@ -91,16 +92,24 @@ static int cpu_psci_cpu_kill(unsigned int cpu)
>>>> * while it is dying. So, try again a few times.
>>>> */
>>>>
>>>> - for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
>>>> + i = 0;
>>>> + timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(100);
>>>> + do {
>>>> err = psci_ops.affinity_info(cpu_logical_map(cpu), 0);
>>>> if (err == PSCI_0_2_AFFINITY_LEVEL_OFF) {
>>>> pr_info("CPU%d killed.\n", cpu);
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> - msleep(10);
>>>> - pr_info("Retrying again to check for CPU kill\n");
>>>
>>> You dropped this message, any particular reason ?
>>>
>> When reduce the time interval to 1ms, the print message maybe increase 10
>> times. on the other hand, cpu_psci_cpu_kill() will print message on success
>> or failure, which this retry log is not very necessary. of cource, I think
>> use pr_info_once() instead of pr_info() is better.
>>
>
> Yes changing it to pr_info_once is better than dropping it as it gives
> some indication to the firmware if there's scope for improvement.
>
>>>> - }
>>>> + /* busy-wait max 1ms */
>>>> + if (i++ < 100) {
>>>> + cond_resched();
>>>> + udelay(10);
>>>> + continue;
>>>
>>> Why can't it be simple like loop of 100 * msleep(1) instead of loop of
>>> 10 * msleep(10). The above initial busy wait for 1 ms looks too much
>>> optimised for your setup where it takes 50-500us, what if it take just
>>> over 1 ms ?
>>>
>> msleep() is implemented by jiffies. when HZ=100 or HZ=250, msleep(1) is not
>> accurate. so I think usleep_range() is better. 1 ms looks simple and good,
>> but how
>> about 100us is better? I refer a function sunxi_mc_smp_cpu_kill(), it use
>> usleep_range(50, 100).
>>
>
> Again that's specific to sunxi platforms and may work well. While I agree
> msleep(1) may not be accurate, I am still inclined to have a max value
> of 1000(i.e. 1ms) for usleep_range.
>
ok, I will send a new version patch that waiting max 1ms.
thanks.
> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep
>
> .
>
