On 2019/10/18 19:45, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 07:24:14PM +0800, Yunfeng Ye wrote:
>> In a case like suspend-to-disk, a large number of CPU cores need to be
>
> Add suspend-to-ram also to list, i.e.
> "In case like suspend-to-disk and suspend-to-ram, a large number..."
>
ok, thanks.
>> shut down. At present, the CPU hotplug operation is serialised, and the
>> CPU cores can only be shut down one by one. In this process, if PSCI
>> affinity_info() does not return LEVEL_OFF quickly, cpu_psci_cpu_kill()
>> needs to wait for 10ms. If hundreds of CPU cores need to be shut down,
>> it will take a long time.
>>
>> Normally, it is no need to wait 10ms in cpu_psci_cpu_kill(). So change
>
> s/it is/there is/
>
ok, thanks.
>> the wait interval from 10 ms to max 1 ms and use usleep_range() instead
>> of msleep() for more accurate schedule.
>>
>
> s/for more accurate schedule/for more accurate timer/
>
ok, thanks.
>> In addition, reduce the time interval will increase the messages output,
>
> s/reduce/reducing/
>
ok, thanks.
>> so remove the "Retry ..." message, instead, put the number of waiting
>> times to the sucessful message.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunf...@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> v2 -> v3:
>> - update the comment
>> - remove the busy-wait logic, modify the loop logic and output message
>>
>> v1 -> v2:
>> - use usleep_range() instead of udelay() after waiting for a while
>>
>> arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c | 7 +++----
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c
>> index c9f72b2665f1..00b8c0825a08 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c
>> @@ -91,15 +91,14 @@ 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++) {
>> + for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
>> 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);
>> + pr_info("CPU%d killed by waiting %d loops.\n", cpu, i);
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> - msleep(10);
>> - pr_info("Retrying again to check for CPU kill\n");
>> + usleep_range(100, 1000);
>
> Since usleep_range can return anytime between 100us to 1ms, does it make
> sense to check for (time_before(jiffies, timeout)) you had in v2 ?
>
ok, if using (time_before(jiffies, timeout)), the output message change to print
waiting xxx jiffies ? or still print the number of loops?
> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep
>
> .
>
