All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "tip-bot2 for Dave Hansen" <tip-bot2@linutronix.de>
To: linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org
Cc: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [tip: x86/urgent] ACPI: processor idle: Practically limit "Dummy wait" workaround to old Intel systems
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 22:29:25 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <166397216527.401.8938673863974895520.tip-bot2@tip-bot2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220922184745.3252932-1-dave.hansen@intel.com>

The following commit has been merged into the x86/urgent branch of tip:

Commit-ID:     e400ad8b7e6a1b9102123c6240289a811501f7d9
Gitweb:        https://git.kernel.org/tip/e400ad8b7e6a1b9102123c6240289a811501f7d9
Author:        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
AuthorDate:    Thu, 22 Sep 2022 11:47:45 -07:00
Committer:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
CommitterDate: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 15:24:10 -07:00

ACPI: processor idle: Practically limit "Dummy wait" workaround to old Intel systems

Old, circa 2002 chipsets have a bug: they don't go idle when they are
supposed to.  So, a workaround was added to slow the CPU down and
ensure that the CPU waits a bit for the chipset to actually go idle.
This workaround is ancient and has been in place in some form since
the original kernel ACPI implementation.

But, this workaround is very painful on modern systems.  The "inl()"
can take thousands of cycles (see Link: for some more detailed
numbers and some fun kernel archaeology).

First and foremost, modern systems should not be using this code.
Typical Intel systems have not used it in over a decade because it is
horribly inferior to MWAIT-based idle.

Despite this, people do seem to be tripping over this workaround on
AMD system today.

Limit the "dummy wait" workaround to Intel systems.  Keep Modern AMD
systems from tripping over the workaround.  Remotely modern Intel
systems use intel_idle instead of this code and will, in practice,
remain unaffected by the dummy wait.

Reported-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
Tested-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220921063638.2489-1-kprateek.nayak@amd.com/
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220922184745.3252932-1-dave.hansen@intel.com
---
 drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
index 16a1663..9f40917 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
@@ -531,10 +531,27 @@ static void wait_for_freeze(void)
 	/* No delay is needed if we are in guest */
 	if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
 		return;
+	/*
+	 * Modern (>=Nehalem) Intel systems use ACPI via intel_idle,
+	 * not this code.  Assume that any Intel systems using this
+	 * are ancient and may need the dummy wait.  This also assumes
+	 * that the motivating chipset issue was Intel-only.
+	 */
+	if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
+		return;
 #endif
-	/* Dummy wait op - must do something useless after P_LVL2 read
-	   because chipsets cannot guarantee that STPCLK# signal
-	   gets asserted in time to freeze execution properly. */
+	/*
+	 * Dummy wait op - must do something useless after P_LVL2 read
+	 * because chipsets cannot guarantee that STPCLK# signal gets
+	 * asserted in time to freeze execution properly
+	 *
+	 * This workaround has been in place since the original ACPI
+	 * implementation was merged, circa 2002.
+	 *
+	 * If a profile is pointing to this instruction, please first
+	 * consider moving your system to a more modern idle
+	 * mechanism.
+	 */
 	inl(acpi_gbl_FADT.xpm_timer_block.address);
 }
 

      parent reply	other threads:[~2022-09-23 22:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20220922184745.3252932-1-dave.hansen@intel.com>
2022-09-22 18:53 ` [PATCH] ACPI: processor idle: Practically limit "Dummy wait" workaround to old Intel systems Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-09-22 18:57   ` Limonciello, Mario
2022-09-22 19:01   ` Dave Hansen
2022-09-23 18:36     ` Kim Phillips
2022-09-26 21:49       ` Dave Hansen
2022-09-23 20:35 ` K Prateek Nayak
2022-09-23 22:29 ` tip-bot2 for Dave Hansen [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=166397216527.401.8938673863974895520.tip-bot2@tip-bot2 \
    --to=tip-bot2@linutronix.de \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mario.limonciello@amd.com \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.