Re: [PATCH RFC v3 03/21] ACPI: processor: Register CPUs that are online, but not described in the DSDT

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 09:27:25 +0000
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 17:30:05 +0000
> "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 05:22:46PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:  
> > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 5:02 PM Jonathan Cameron
> > > <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:    
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 11:06:29 +0000
> > > > "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >    
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 09:22:03PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:    
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 1:49 PM Russell King <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:    
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ACPI has two descriptions of CPUs, one in the MADT/APIC table, the other
> > > > > > > in the DSDT. Both are required. (ACPI 6.5's 8.4 "Declaring Processors"
> > > > > > > says "Each processor in the system must be declared in the ACPI
> > > > > > > namespace"). Having two descriptions allows firmware authors to get
> > > > > > > this wrong.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If CPUs are described in the MADT/APIC, they will be brought online
> > > > > > > early during boot. Once the register_cpu() calls are moved to ACPI,
> > > > > > > they will be based on the DSDT description of the CPUs. When CPUs are
> > > > > > > missing from the DSDT description, they will end up online, but not
> > > > > > > registered.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Add a helper that runs after acpi_init() has completed to register
> > > > > > > CPUs that are online, but weren't found in the DSDT. Any CPU that
> > > > > > > is registered by this code triggers a firmware-bug warning and kernel
> > > > > > > taint.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Qemu TCG only describes the first CPU in the DSDT, unless cpu-hotplug
> > > > > > > is configured.    
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So why is this a kernel problem?    
> > > > >
> > > > > So what are you proposing should be the behaviour here? What this
> > > > > statement seems to be saying is that QEMU as it exists today only
> > > > > describes the first CPU in DSDT.    
> > > >
> > > > This confuses me somewhat, because I'm far from sure which machines this
> > > > is true for in QEMU.  I'm guessing it's a legacy thing with
> > > > some old distro version of QEMU - so we'll have to paper over it anyway
> > > > but for current QEMU I'm not sure it's true.
> > > >
> > > > Helpfully there are a bunch of ACPI table tests so I've been checking
> > > > through all the multi CPU cases.
> > > >
> > > > CPU hotplug not enabled.
> > > > pc/DSDT.dimmpxm  - 4x Processor entries.  -smp 4
> > > > pc/DSDT.acpihmat - 2x Processor entries.  -smp 2
> > > > q35/DSDT.acpihmat - 2x Processor entries. -smp 2
> > > > virt/DSDT.acpihmatvirt - 4x ACPI0007 entries -smp 4
> > > > q35/DSDT.acpihmat-noinitiator - 4 x Processor () entries -smp 4
> > > > virt/DSDT.topology - 8x ACPI0007 entries
> > > >
> > > > I've also looked at the code and we have various types of
> > > > CPU hotplug on x86 but they all build appropriate numbers of
> > > > Processor() entries in DSDT.
> > > > Arm likewise seems to build the right number of ACPI0007 entries
> > > > (and doesn't yet have CPU HP support).
> > > >
> > > > If anyone can add a reference on why this is needed that would be very
> > > > helpful.    
> > > 
> > > Yes, it would.
> > > 
> > > Personally, I would prefer to assume that it is not necessary until it
> > > turns out that (1) there is firmware with this issue actually in use
> > > and (2) updating the firmware in question to follow the specification
> > > is not practical.
> > > 
> > > Otherwise, we'd make it easier to ship non-compliant firmware for no
> > > good reason.    
> > 
> > If Salil can't come up with a reason, then I'm in favour of dropping
> > the patch like already done for patch 2. If the code change serves no
> > useful purpose, there's no point in making the change.
> >   
> 
> Salil's out today, but I've messaged him to follow up later in the week.
> 
> It 'might' be the odd cold plug path where QEMU half comes up, then extra
> CPUs are added, then it boots. (used by some orchestration frameworks)

I poked this on x86 - it only applies with hotplug enabled anyway so
same result as doing the hotplug later - All possible Processor() entries
already exist in DSDT. Hence this isn't the source of the mysterious
broken configuration.

If anyone does poke this path, the old discussion between James
and Salil provides some instructions (mostly the thread is about
another issue).
https://op-lists.linaro.org/archives/list/linaro-open-discussions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/DNAGB2FB5ALVLV2BYWYOCLKGNF77PNXS/

Also on x86 a test involving smp 2,max-cpus=4 and adding cpu-id 3
(so skipping 2) doesn't boot. (this is without Salil's QEMU patches).
I guess there are some well known rules in there that I don't know about
and QEMU isn't preventing people shooting themselves in the foot.

As I'm concerned, drop this patch.
If there are platforms out there doing this wrong they'll surface once
we get this into more test farms (so linux-next).  If we need this
'fix' we can apply it when we have a problem firmware to point at.

Thanks,

Jonathan

> I don't have a set up for that and I won't get to creating one today anyway
> (we all love start of the year planning workshops!)

> 
> I've +CC'd a few people have run tests on the various iterations of this
> work in the past.  Maybe one of them can shed some light on this?
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel