[PATCH v5 1/3] cpu/hotplug: Allow suspend/resume CPU to be specified

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 01:50:25PM +0100, James Morse wrote:
> > disable_nonboot_cpus() assumes that the lowest numbered online CPU is
> > the boot CPU, and that this is the correct CPU to run any power
> > management code on.
> > 
> > On x86 this is always correct, as CPU0 cannot (easily) by taken offline.
> > 
> > On arm64 CPU0 can be taken offline. For hibernate/resume this means we
> > may hibernate on a CPU other than CPU0. If the system is rebooted with
> > kexec 'CPU0' will be assigned to a different physical CPU. This
> > complicates hibernate/resume as now we can't trust the CPU numbers.
> > Arch code can find the correct physical CPU, and ensure it is online
> > before resume from hibernate begins, but also needs to influence
> > disable_nonboot_cpus()s choice of CPU.
> > 
> > Rename disable_nonboot_cpus() as freeze_secondary_cpus() and add an
> > argument indicating which CPU should be left standing. Follow the logic
> > in migrate_to_reboot_cpu() to use the lowest numbered online CPU if the
> > requested CPU is not online.
> > Add disable_nonboot_cpus() as an inline function that has the existing
> > behaviour.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse at arm.com>
> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw at rjwysocki.net>
> > ---
> > An alternative is to provide two functions calling a common function,
> > but this would mean spilling the cpu_maps_update_begin() into these two.
> > 
> >  include/linux/cpu.h | 6 +++++-
> >  kernel/cpu.c        | 9 +++++----
> >  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> Thomas, does this look ok to you? If so, would you prefer to merge this
> series via -tip, or have us take this one via the arm64 tree?

You can take it via ARM64. It's not conflicting with the stuff I have in the
pipeline.

Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de>