[PATCH 2 1/4] powerpc: drop the ability to tweak SMT mode at boot time

[Greg Kurz]

On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 12:52:45 -0600
Scott Wood <scottwood at freescale.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 16:14 +0100, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > The smt-enabled kernel parameter basically leaves unwanted cpus executing
> > in firmware or wherever they happen to be. The very same applies to the
> > ibm,smt-enabled DT property which is no more used by anything known. These
> > are hacks that shoudn't be used in a production environment.
> > 
> > Quoting mpe, "there are better ways for firmware to disable SMT".
> 

Hi Scott,

> Those "better ways" don't apply to Freescale chips, where the OS enables
> (or not) SMT without any interaction with firmware.  I don't care about
> the ibm,smt-enabled property, but can we please keep the smt-enabled
> boot option?
> 

Fair enough for the firmware side, what about CPU hot(un)plug then ?

> > It also has an evil side effect on the split-core feature for powernv. The
> > code needs all the cpus to participate to the split mode update: it relies
> > on smp_send_reschedule() to get offline ones to do so. This doesn't work with
> > cpus that haven't come up... The consequence is a kernel hang on powernv when
> > trying to limit the number of hw threads at boot time (e.g. smt-enabled to
> > anything but 8 on POWER8).
> 
> In that case could you disable the option only on that hardware?
> 

The fact it breaks only powernv doesn't mean it is a powernv only issue.
The smt-enabled feature is a hack because it leaves some cpus in a undefined
state from a kernel POV. Moreover it drags about 80 lines of code and sits
entirely in common ppc64 code. I would reverse the question then ? Why not
moving smt-enabled code to freescale only ?

> > This patch simply removes both the smt-enabled kernel parameter and the
> > ibm,smt-enabled property for all platforms. The new default is to start
> > all hw threads. That leaves /sys the only supported API to change SMT
> > settings.
> 
> How would you use /sys for this?  Are you talking about CPU hotplug?
> 

Yes. This is the safer way to offline cpus.

> -Scott
> 

Cheers.

--
Greg