similar to: [PATCH v6 0/6] Support calling functions on dedicated physical cpu

Some hardware (e.g. Dell Studio laptops) require special functions to be called on physical cpu 0 in order to avoid occasional hangs. When running as dom0 under Xen this could be achieved only via special boot parameters (vcpu pinning) limiting the hypervisor in it's scheduling decisions. This patch series is adding a generic function to be able to temporarily pin a (virtual) cpu to a

Some hardware (e.g. Dell Studio laptops) require special functions to be called on physical cpu 0 in order to avoid occasional hangs. When running as dom0 under Xen this could be achieved only via special boot parameters (vcpu pinning) limiting the hypervisor in it's scheduling decisions. This patch series is adding a generic function to be able to temporarily pin a (virtual) cpu to a

Some hardware (e.g. Dell Studio laptops) require special functions to be called on physical cpu 0 in order to avoid occasional hangs. When running as dom0 under Xen this could be achieved only via special boot parameters (vcpu pinning) limiting the hypervisor in it's scheduling decisions. This patch series is adding a generic function to be able to temporarily pin a (virtual) cpu to a

Some hardware (e.g. Dell Studio laptops) require special functions to be called on physical cpu 0 in order to avoid occasional hangs. When running as dom0 under Xen this could be achieved only via special boot parameters (vcpu pinning) limiting the hypervisor in it's scheduling decisions. This patch series is adding a generic function to be able to temporarily pin a (virtual) cpu to a

Some hardware (e.g. Dell Studio laptops) require special functions to be called on physical cpu 0 in order to avoid occasional hangs. When running as dom0 under Xen this could be achieved only via special boot parameters (vcpu pinning) limiting the hypervisor in it's scheduling decisions. This patch series is adding a generic function to be able to temporarily pin a (virtual) cpu to a

Some hardware (e.g. Dell Studio laptops) require special functions to be called on physical cpu 0 in order to avoid occasional hangs. When running as dom0 under Xen this could be achieved only via special boot parameters (vcpu pinning) limiting the hypervisor in it's scheduling decisions. This patch series is adding a generic function to be able to temporarily pin a (virtual) cpu to a

Some hardware (e.g. Dell Studio laptops) require special functions to be called on physical cpu 0 in order to avoid occasional hangs. When running as dom0 under Xen this could be achieved only via special boot parameters (vcpu pinning) limiting the hypervisor in it's scheduling decisions. This patch series is adding a generic function to be able to temporarily pin a (virtual) cpu to a

Some hardware (e.g. Dell Studio laptops) require special functions to be called on physical cpu 0 in order to avoid occasional hangs. When running as dom0 under Xen this could be achieved only via special boot parameters (vcpu pinning) limiting the hypervisor in it's scheduling decisions. This patch series is adding a generic function to be able to temporarily pin a (virtual) cpu to a

On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 09:14:33AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: > --- a/kernel/smp.c > +++ b/kernel/smp.c > @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ > #include <linux/smp.h> > #include <linux/cpu.h> > #include <linux/sched.h> > +#include <linux/hypervisor.h> > > #include "smpboot.h" > > @@ -758,9 +759,14 @@ struct smp_sync_call_struct { >

On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 09:14:33AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: > --- a/kernel/smp.c > +++ b/kernel/smp.c > @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ > #include <linux/smp.h> > #include <linux/cpu.h> > #include <linux/sched.h> > +#include <linux/hypervisor.h> > > #include "smpboot.h" > > @@ -758,9 +759,14 @@ struct smp_sync_call_struct { >

On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 10:28:46AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 01/04/16 09:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 09:14:33AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: > >> --- a/kernel/smp.c > >> +++ b/kernel/smp.c > >> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ > >> #include <linux/smp.h> > >> #include <linux/cpu.h> > >> #include

On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 10:28:46AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 01/04/16 09:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 09:14:33AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: > >> --- a/kernel/smp.c > >> +++ b/kernel/smp.c > >> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ > >> #include <linux/smp.h> > >> #include <linux/cpu.h> > >> #include

Use smp_call_on_cpu() to raise SMI on cpu 0. Make call secure by adding get_online_cpus() to avoid e.g. suspend resume cycles in between. Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross at suse.com> --- V4: add call to get_online_cpus() --- drivers/firmware/dcdbas.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) diff --git

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 07:10:07AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: > Use the smp_call_on_cpu() function to call system management > mode on cpu 0. > Make call secure by adding get_online_cpus() to avoid e.g. suspend > resume cycles in between. > > Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross at suse.com> > --- > V4: add call to get_online_cpus() Pali, any chance to test this ?

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 07:10:07AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: > Use the smp_call_on_cpu() function to call system management > mode on cpu 0. > Make call secure by adding get_online_cpus() to avoid e.g. suspend > resume cycles in between. > > Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross at suse.com> > --- > V4: add call to get_online_cpus() Pali, any chance to test this ?

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 07:10:04AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: > +int smp_call_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, bool pin, int (*func)(void *), void *par) Why .pin and not .phys? .pin does not (to me) reflect the hypervisor/physical-cpu thing. Also, as per smp_call_function_single() would it not be more consistent to make this the last argument? > +{ > + struct smp_call_on_cpu_struct sscs = {

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 07:10:04AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: > +int smp_call_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, bool pin, int (*func)(void *), void *par) Why .pin and not .phys? .pin does not (to me) reflect the hypervisor/physical-cpu thing. Also, as per smp_call_function_single() would it not be more consistent to make this the last argument? > +{ > + struct smp_call_on_cpu_struct sscs = {

On some hardware models (e.g. Dell Studio 1555 laptop) some hardware related functions (e.g. SMIs) are to be executed on physical cpu 0 only. Instead of open coding such a functionality multiple times in the kernel add a service function for this purpose. This will enable the possibility to take special measures in virtualized environments like Xen, too. Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross at

On some hardware models (e.g. Dell Studio 1555 laptop) some hardware related functions (e.g. SMIs) are to be executed on physical cpu 0 only. Instead of open coding such a functionality multiple times in the kernel add a service function for this purpose. This will enable the possibility to take special measures in virtualized environments like Xen, too. Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross at

Use the smp_call_on_cpu() function to call system management mode on cpu 0. Make call secure by adding get_online_cpus() to avoid e.g. suspend resume cycles in between. Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross at suse.com> --- V4: add call to get_online_cpus() --- drivers/hwmon/dell-smm-hwmon.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff