Re: [v3 PATCH 8/8] RISC-V: Assign hwcap only according to boot cpu.

[Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 12:03:30 -0800
Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com> wrote:

> On 2/11/19 11:02 AM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> > On Fri, 08 Feb 2019 20:26:07 PST (-0800), david.abdurachmanov@gmail.com wrote:  
> >> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 12:03 AM Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com> wrote:  
> >>>
> >>> On 2/8/19 1:11 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:  
> >>>>> +     * We don't support running Linux on hertergenous ISA systems.
> >>>>> +     * But first "okay" processor might not be the boot cpu.
> >>>>> +     * Check the ISA of boot cpu.  
> >>>>
> >>>> Please use up your available 80 characters per line in comments.
> >>>>  
> >>> I will fix it.
> >>>  
> >>>>> +            /*
> >>>>> +             * All "okay" hart should have same isa. We don't know how to
> >>>>> +             * handle if they don't. Throw a warning for now.
> >>>>> +             */
> >>>>> +            if (elf_hwcap && temp_hwcap != elf_hwcap)
> >>>>> +                    pr_warn("isa mismatch: 0x%lx != 0x%lx\n",
> >>>>> +                            elf_hwcap, temp_hwcap);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +            if (hartid == boot_cpu_hartid)
> >>>>> +                    boot_hwcap = temp_hwcap;
> >>>>> +            elf_hwcap = temp_hwcap;  
> >>>>
> >>>> So we always set elf_hwcap to the capabilities of the previous cpu.
> >>>>  
> >>>>> +            temp_hwcap = 0;  
> >>>>
> >>>> I think tmp_hwcap should be declared and initialized inside the outer loop
> >>>> instead having to manually reset it like this.
> >>>>  
> >>>>> +    }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +    elf_hwcap = boot_hwcap;  
> >>>>
> >>>> And then reset it here to the boot cpu.
> >>>>
> >>>> Shoudn't we only report the features supported by all cores?  Otherwise
> >>>> we'll still have problems if the boot cpu supports a feature, but not
> >>>> others.
> >>>>  
> >>>
> >>> Hmm. The other side of the argument is boot cpu does have a feature that
> >>> is not supported by other hart that didn't even boot.
> >>> The user space may execute something based on boot cpu capability but
> >>> that won't be enabled.
> >>>
> >>> At least, in this way we know that we are compatible completely with
> >>> boot cpu capabilities. Thoughts ?  
> >>
> >> There is one example on the market, e.g., Samsung Exynos 9810.
> >>
> >> Mongoose 3 (big cores) only support ARMv8.0, while Cortex-A55
> >> (little ones) support ARMv8.2 (and that brings atomics support).
> >> I think, it's the only ARM SOC that supports different ISA extensions
> >> between cores on the same package.
> >>
> >> Kernel scheduler doesn't know that big cores are missing atomics
> >> support or that applications needs it and moves the thread
> >> resulting in illegal instruction.
> >>
> >> E.g., see Golang issue: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/28431
> >>
> >> I also recall Jon Masters (Computer Architect at Red Hat) advocating
> >> against having cores with mismatched capabilities on the server market.
> >>
> >> It just causes more problems down the line.
> > > IMO the best bet is to only put extensions in HWCAP that are supported by all  
> > the harts that userspace will be scheduled on.
> > Fair enough. Instead of setting HWCAP in setup_arch() once, we can set it only for boot cpu. It will be updated after every cpu comes up online.  
> 
> Thus, HWCAP will consists all extensions supported by all cpus that are online currently.

You must thus prevent CPUs that have a different set of capabilities
from coming up late (once userspace has started).

	M.
-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv