All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>
To: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, marc.zyngier@arm.com, james.morse@arm.com,
	daniel.thompson@linaro.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] arm64: cpufeature: Allow early detect of specific features
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 15:13:06 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4a8dc4ec-2762-e1cd-8126-ff44abcb67f2@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5cafee50-c2ee-6c04-756c-785cdf822b27@arm.com>

On 22/01/18 15:01, Julien Thierry wrote:
> 
> 
> On 22/01/18 14:45, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> On 22/01/18 12:21, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22/01/18 12:05, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>>> On 17/01/18 11:54, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>>>> From: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently it is not possible to detect features of the boot CPU
>>>>> until the other CPUs have been brought up.
>>>>>
>>>>> This prevents us from reacting to features of the boot CPU until
>>>>> fairly late in the boot process. To solve this we allow a subset
>>>>> of features (that are likely to be common to all clusters) to be
>>>>> detected based on the boot CPU alone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
>>>>> [julien.thierry@arm.com: check non-boot cpu missing early features, avoid
>>>>>              duplicates between early features and normal
>>>>>              features]
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>
>>>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>>>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
>>>>> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>>>>>   1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>>>>> index a73a592..6698404 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>>>>> @@ -52,6 +52,8 @@
>>>>>   DECLARE_BITMAP(cpu_hwcaps, ARM64_NCAPS);
>>>>>   EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpu_hwcaps);
>>>>>
>>>>> +static void __init setup_early_feature_capabilities(void);
>>>>> +
>>>>>   /*
>>>>>    * Flag to indicate if we have computed the system wide
>>>>>    * capabilities based on the boot time active CPUs. This
>>>>> @@ -542,6 +544,8 @@ void __init init_cpu_features(struct cpuinfo_arm64 *info)
>>>>>           init_cpu_ftr_reg(SYS_ZCR_EL1, info->reg_zcr);
>>>>>           sve_init_vq_map();
>>>>>       }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    setup_early_feature_capabilities();
>>>>>   }
>>>>>
>>>>>   static void update_cpu_ftr_reg(struct arm64_ftr_reg *reg, u64 new)
>>>>> @@ -846,7 +850,7 @@ static bool has_no_fpsimd(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int __unus
>>>>>                       ID_AA64PFR0_FP_SHIFT) < 0;
>>>>>   }
>>>>>
>>>>> -static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_features[] = {
>>>>> +static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_early_features[] = {
>>>>>       {
>>>>>           .desc = "GIC system register CPU interface",
>>>>>           .capability = ARM64_HAS_SYSREG_GIC_CPUIF,
>>>>> @@ -857,6 +861,10 @@ static bool has_no_fpsimd(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int __unus
>>>>>           .sign = FTR_UNSIGNED,
>>>>>           .min_field_value = 1,
>>>>>       },
>>>>> +    {}
>>>>> +};
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Julien,
>>>>
>>>> One potential problem with this is that we don't have a way
>>>> to make this work on a "theoretical" system with and without
>>>> GIC system reg interface. i.e, if we don't have the CONFIG
>>>> enabled for using ICC system regs for IRQ flags, the kernel
>>>> could still panic. I understand this is not a "normal" configuration
>>>> but, may be we could make the panic option based on whether
>>>> we actually use the system regs early enough ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I see, however I'm not sure what happens in the GIC drivers if we have a CPU running with a GICv3 and other CPUs with something else... But of course this is not technically limited by the arm64 capabilities handling.
>>>
>>> What behaviour would you be looking for? A way to prevent the CPU to be brought up instead of panicking?
>>>
>>
>> If we have the CONFIG enabled for using system regs, we can continue
>> to panic the system. Otherwise, we should ignore the mismatch early,
>> as we don't use the system register access unless all boot time active
>> CPUs have it.
>>
> 
> Hmmm, we use the CPUIF (if available) in the first CPU pretty much as soon as we re-enable interrupts in the GICv3 driver, which is way before the other CPUs are brought up.

Isn't this CPUIF access an alternative, patched only when CPUIF feature
enabled ? (which is done only after all the allowed SMP CPUs are brought up )
> 
> other CPUs get to die_early().

Really ? I thought only late CPUs are sent to die_early().

> 
>> In a nutshell, this is an early feature only if the CONFIG is enabled,
>> otherwise should fall back to the normal behavior.
>>
> 
> Maybe we should just not panic and let the mismatching CPUs die.
> It's a system wide feature and linux will try to make the other CPUs match the boot CPU's config anyway.
> 

Suzuki

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com (Suzuki K Poulose)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/6] arm64: cpufeature: Allow early detect of specific features
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 15:13:06 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4a8dc4ec-2762-e1cd-8126-ff44abcb67f2@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5cafee50-c2ee-6c04-756c-785cdf822b27@arm.com>

On 22/01/18 15:01, Julien Thierry wrote:
> 
> 
> On 22/01/18 14:45, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> On 22/01/18 12:21, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22/01/18 12:05, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>>> On 17/01/18 11:54, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>>>> From: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently it is not possible to detect features of the boot CPU
>>>>> until the other CPUs have been brought up.
>>>>>
>>>>> This prevents us from reacting to features of the boot CPU until
>>>>> fairly late in the boot process. To solve this we allow a subset
>>>>> of features (that are likely to be common to all clusters) to be
>>>>> detected based on the boot CPU alone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
>>>>> [julien.thierry at arm.com: check non-boot cpu missing early features, avoid
>>>>> ???????????? duplicates between early features and normal
>>>>> ???????????? features]
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>
>>>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>>>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
>>>>> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ? arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>>>>> ? 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>>>>> index a73a592..6698404 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>>>>> @@ -52,6 +52,8 @@
>>>>> ? DECLARE_BITMAP(cpu_hwcaps, ARM64_NCAPS);
>>>>> ? EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpu_hwcaps);
>>>>>
>>>>> +static void __init setup_early_feature_capabilities(void);
>>>>> +
>>>>> ? /*
>>>>> ?? * Flag to indicate if we have computed the system wide
>>>>> ?? * capabilities based on the boot time active CPUs. This
>>>>> @@ -542,6 +544,8 @@ void __init init_cpu_features(struct cpuinfo_arm64 *info)
>>>>> ????????? init_cpu_ftr_reg(SYS_ZCR_EL1, info->reg_zcr);
>>>>> ????????? sve_init_vq_map();
>>>>> ????? }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +??? setup_early_feature_capabilities();
>>>>> ? }
>>>>>
>>>>> ? static void update_cpu_ftr_reg(struct arm64_ftr_reg *reg, u64 new)
>>>>> @@ -846,7 +850,7 @@ static bool has_no_fpsimd(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int __unus
>>>>> ????????????????????? ID_AA64PFR0_FP_SHIFT) < 0;
>>>>> ? }
>>>>>
>>>>> -static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_features[] = {
>>>>> +static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_early_features[] = {
>>>>> ????? {
>>>>> ????????? .desc = "GIC system register CPU interface",
>>>>> ????????? .capability = ARM64_HAS_SYSREG_GIC_CPUIF,
>>>>> @@ -857,6 +861,10 @@ static bool has_no_fpsimd(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int __unus
>>>>> ????????? .sign = FTR_UNSIGNED,
>>>>> ????????? .min_field_value = 1,
>>>>> ????? },
>>>>> +??? {}
>>>>> +};
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Julien,
>>>>
>>>> One potential problem with this is that we don't have a way
>>>> to make this work on a "theoretical" system with and without
>>>> GIC system reg interface. i.e, if we don't have the CONFIG
>>>> enabled for using ICC system regs for IRQ flags, the kernel
>>>> could still panic. I understand this is not a "normal" configuration
>>>> but, may be we could make the panic option based on whether
>>>> we actually use the system regs early enough ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I see, however I'm not sure what happens in the GIC drivers if we have a CPU running with a GICv3 and other CPUs with something else... But of course this is not technically limited by the arm64 capabilities handling.
>>>
>>> What behaviour would you be looking for? A way to prevent the CPU to be brought up instead of panicking?
>>>
>>
>> If we have the CONFIG enabled for using system regs, we can continue
>> to panic the system. Otherwise, we should ignore the mismatch early,
>> as we don't use the system register access unless all boot time active
>> CPUs have it.
>>
> 
> Hmmm, we use the CPUIF (if available) in the first CPU pretty much as soon as we re-enable interrupts in the GICv3 driver, which is way before the other CPUs are brought up.

Isn't this CPUIF access an alternative, patched only when CPUIF feature
enabled ? (which is done only after all the allowed SMP CPUs are brought up )
> 
> other CPUs get to die_early().

Really ? I thought only late CPUs are sent to die_early().

> 
>> In a nutshell, this is an early feature only if the CONFIG is enabled,
>> otherwise should fall back to the normal behavior.
>>
> 
> Maybe we should just not panic and let the mismatching CPUs die.
> It's a system wide feature and linux will try to make the other CPUs match the boot CPU's config anyway.
> 

Suzuki

  reply	other threads:[~2018-01-22 15:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 71+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-01-17 11:54 [PATCH v2 0/6] arm64: provide pseudo NMI with GICv3 Julien Thierry
2018-01-17 11:54 ` Julien Thierry
2018-01-17 11:54 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] arm64: cpufeature: Allow early detect of specific features Julien Thierry
2018-01-17 11:54   ` Julien Thierry
2018-01-22 12:05   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-22 12:05     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-22 12:21     ` Julien Thierry
2018-01-22 12:21       ` Julien Thierry
2018-01-22 13:38       ` Daniel Thompson
2018-01-22 13:38         ` Daniel Thompson
2018-01-22 13:57         ` Marc Zyngier
2018-01-22 13:57           ` Marc Zyngier
2018-01-22 14:14           ` Julien Thierry
2018-01-22 14:14             ` Julien Thierry
2018-01-22 14:20             ` Marc Zyngier
2018-01-22 14:20               ` Marc Zyngier
2018-01-22 14:45       ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-22 14:45         ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-22 15:01         ` Julien Thierry
2018-01-22 15:01           ` Julien Thierry
2018-01-22 15:13           ` Suzuki K Poulose [this message]
2018-01-22 15:13             ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-22 15:23             ` Julien Thierry
2018-01-22 15:23               ` Julien Thierry
2018-01-22 15:34               ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-22 15:34                 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-17 11:54 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] arm64: alternative: Apply alternatives early in boot process Julien Thierry
2018-01-17 11:54   ` Julien Thierry
2018-05-04 10:06   ` Julien Thierry
2018-05-04 10:06     ` Julien Thierry
2018-05-09 14:27     ` Daniel Thompson
2018-05-09 14:27       ` Daniel Thompson
2018-05-09 21:52     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-05-09 21:52       ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-05-11  8:12       ` Julien Thierry
2018-05-11  8:12         ` Julien Thierry
2018-05-11  9:19         ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-05-11  9:19           ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-17 11:54 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] arm64: irqflags: Use ICC sysregs to implement IRQ masking Julien Thierry
2018-01-17 11:54   ` Julien Thierry
2018-01-17 11:54 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] irqchip/gic: Add functions to access irq priorities Julien Thierry
2018-01-17 11:54   ` Julien Thierry
2018-01-17 11:54 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] arm64: Detect current view of GIC priorities Julien Thierry
2018-01-17 11:54   ` Julien Thierry
2018-02-03  3:01   ` Yang Yingliang
2018-02-03  3:01     ` Yang Yingliang
2018-01-17 11:54 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] arm64: Add support for pseudo-NMIs Julien Thierry
2018-01-17 11:54   ` Julien Thierry
2018-01-17 12:10 ` [PATCH v2 0/6] arm64: provide pseudo NMI with GICv3 Julien Thierry
2018-01-17 12:10   ` Julien Thierry
2018-04-29  6:37   ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-29  6:37     ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-30  9:53     ` Julien Thierry
2018-04-30  9:53       ` Julien Thierry
2018-04-30 10:55       ` Daniel Thompson
2018-04-30 10:55         ` Daniel Thompson
2018-05-01 18:18         ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-01 18:18           ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-02 11:02           ` Daniel Thompson
2018-05-02 11:02             ` Daniel Thompson
     [not found] ` <8315db11-7899-008d-f37a-c311b278a1c4@hisilicon.com>
     [not found]   ` <7ec201a4-e2dc-8a1e-e8a1-f2b10bd41cd4@huawei.com>
     [not found]     ` <afb46ee0-4f26-fd1a-2fd1-866dc0b25175@arm.com>
2018-03-27 12:48       ` dongbo (E)
2018-03-27 13:02         ` Marc Zyngier
2018-03-27 13:09         ` Julien Thierry
2018-04-29  6:35 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-29  6:35   ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-30  9:46   ` Julien Thierry
2018-04-30  9:46     ` Julien Thierry
2018-05-01 20:51     ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-01 20:51       ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-02 11:08       ` Marc Zyngier
2018-05-02 11:08         ` Marc Zyngier

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=4a8dc4ec-2762-e1cd-8126-ff44abcb67f2@arm.com \
    --to=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=daniel.thompson@linaro.org \
    --cc=james.morse@arm.com \
    --cc=julien.thierry@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /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.