mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>
To: Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@synopsys.com>
Cc: "wbx@uclibc-ng.org" <wbx@uclibc-ng.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARC: Enable machine_desc->init_per_cpu for non-SMP configs
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 16:11:27 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <eb9111fb-7530-98d9-6800-8413ad90360c@synopsys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <59f6fc647175e3f22f530fc4497cc4104af355e7.camel@synopsys.com>

On 06/14/2018 03:26 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> Hi Vineet,
>
> On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 09:46 -0800, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> On 11/29/2017 12:21 AM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
>>> As of today we assumed that "machine_desc->init_per_cpu" calls
>>> are only usable on SMP systems when we want to run some piece of
>>> code on early boot for each and every core, I guess assumption was
>>> we have "machine_desc->init_early" for single-core cases where
>>> the one and only master core can do all the things.
>>>
>>> But it turned out for platforms which might be both UP and SMP it
>>> might be benificial to use "init_per_cpu" for both UP and SMP cases
>>> with which we achieve 2 things simultaneously:
>>>   1) Exactly the same one code will be used for UP&SMP for
>>>      things required to be done on each an every core regardless if it's
>>>      a master and the only core in UP system or any other slave core in SMP
>>>      setup.
>>>   1) There will be no "ifdef CONFIG_SMP" around "init_per_cpu".
>>>
>> Seems fine to me. However this needs to go with the actual platform change which 
>> needs it.
> Well for example this might get in the way of building kernel for HSDK with
> CONFIG_SMP disabled which is IMHO quite valid case in terms of testing
> code-base compiled with no CONFIG_SMP 

Fair enough - although world is moving away from UP.


> (something Waldemar was up to).

Really, why does he care if we are running SMP kernel - oh his simulation time
goes up. But honestly he should try and use the SMP kernel for testing as that
might uncover any system wide / SMP specific bugs in testing uclibc as well !

> Is it a strong enough reason for that patch to be applied?

Well per my original reply I didn't have any objections for this per-se and wanted
to see the platform patch. Seems we don't need platform patch as it is not under
#ifdef in hsdk/platform.c

I'll queue this up !

-Vineet

      reply	other threads:[~2018-06-20 23:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-11-29  8:21 Alexey Brodkin
2017-11-30 17:46 ` Vineet Gupta
2018-06-14 22:26   ` Alexey Brodkin
2018-06-20 23:11     ` Vineet Gupta [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=eb9111fb-7530-98d9-6800-8413ad90360c@synopsys.com \
    --to=vineet.gupta1@synopsys.com \
    --cc=Alexey.Brodkin@synopsys.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=wbx@uclibc-ng.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®