On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 09:29:13PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> So this waits and then does nothing if the wait fails. What's the point?
>
> ...
>
>
> Do we really need this specific hackery or is there some similar
> identity mapping muck which can be generalized?
I've addressed all your
On Fri, 2023-12-22 at 14:19 +0300, kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 11:36:55PM +, Huang, Kai wrote:
> >
> > > +
> > > +static void acpi_mp_stop_other_cpus(int wait)
> > > +{
> > > + smp_shutdown_nonboot_cpus(smp_processor_id());
> > > +}
> >
> > Is this and
On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 11:36:55PM +, Huang, Kai wrote:
>
> > +
> > +static void acpi_mp_stop_other_cpus(int wait)
> > +{
> > + smp_shutdown_nonboot_cpus(smp_processor_id());
> > +}
>
> Is this and ...
>
> + smp_ops.stop_other_cpus = acpi_mp_stop_other_cpus;
>
> ... this below still
On Tue, Dec 05 2023 at 03:45, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> MADT Multiprocessor Wakeup structure version 1 brings support of CPU
> offlining: BIOS provides a reset vector where the CPU has to jump to
> offline itself.
CPU has to jump to for offlining itself.
> The new TEST mailbox command can be
> +
> +static void acpi_mp_stop_other_cpus(int wait)
> +{
> + smp_shutdown_nonboot_cpus(smp_processor_id());
> +}
Is this and ...
+ smp_ops.stop_other_cpus = acpi_mp_stop_other_cpus;
... this below still needed?
I think the current native_stop_other_cpus() should just work given
MADT Multiprocessor Wakeup structure version 1 brings support of CPU
offlining: BIOS provides a reset vector where the CPU has to jump to
offline itself. The new TEST mailbox command can be used to test the CPU
offlined successfully and BIOS has control over it.
Add CPU offling support for ACPI
