All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@arm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: cpufeature: Fix the type of no FP/SIMD capability
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 14:03:05 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4b4ead8e-383e-67ee-672d-247a52f6c7f3@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu_=jw94Hj5Vo=5w+hb5RcPR4SQvxOM02WQr9hDhyzE67g@mail.gmail.com>



On 15/10/2019 11:30, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 12:25, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 06:57:30PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 17:50, Dave P Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 04:45:40PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 14/10/2019 15:52, Dave Martin wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 06:28:43PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/10/2019 15:21, Dave Martin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 01:13:18PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > Hi Dave
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/10/2019 12:36, Dave Martin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:15:15PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The NO_FPSIMD capability is defined with scope SYSTEM, which implies
>>>>>>>>>>> that the "absence" of FP/SIMD on at least one CPU is detected only
>>>>>>>>>>> after all the SMP CPUs are brought up. However, we use the status
>>>>>>>>>>> of this capability for every context switch. So, let us change
>>>>>>>>>>> the scop to LOCAL_CPU to allow the detection of this capability
>>>>>>>>>>> as and when the first CPU without FP is brought up.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also, the current type allows hotplugged CPU to be brought up without
>>>>>>>>>>> FP/SIMD when all the current CPUs have FP/SIMD and we have the userspace
>>>>>>>>>>> up. Fix both of these issues by changing the capability to
>>>>>>>>>>> BOOT_RESTRICTED_LOCAL_CPU_FEATURE.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Fixes: 82e0191a1aa11abf ("arm64: Support systems without FP/ASIMD")
>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>    arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>>>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>>>>>>>>>>> index 9323bcc40a58..0f9eace6c64b 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1361,7 +1361,7 @@ static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_features[] = {
>>>>>>>>>>>         {
>>>>>>>>>>>                 /* FP/SIMD is not implemented */
>>>>>>>>>>>                 .capability = ARM64_HAS_NO_FPSIMD,
>>>>>>>>>>> -              .type = ARM64_CPUCAP_SYSTEM_FEATURE,
>>>>>>>>>>> +              .type = ARM64_CPUCAP_BOOT_RESTRICTED_CPU_LOCAL_FEATURE,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ARM64_HAS_NO_FPSIMD is really a disability, not a capability.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Although we have other things that smell like this (CPU errata for
>>>>>>>>>> example), I wonder whether inverting the meaning in the case would
>>>>>>>>>> make the situation easier to understand.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is indeed a disability, more on that below.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, we'd have ARM64_HAS_FPSIMD, with a minimum (signed) feature field
>>>>>>>>>> value of 0.  Then this just looks like an ARM64_CPUCAP_SYSTEM_FEATURE
>>>>>>>>>> IIUC.  We'd just need to invert the sense of the check in
>>>>>>>>>> system_supports_fpsimd().
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is particularly something we want to avoid with this patch. We want
>>>>>>>>> to make sure that we have the up-to-date status of the disability right
>>>>>>>>> when it happens. i.e, a CPU without FP/SIMD is brought up. With SYSTEM_FEATURE
>>>>>>>>> you have to wait until we bring all the CPUs up. Also, for HAS_FPSIMD,
>>>>>>>>> you must wait until all the CPUs are up, unlike the negated capability.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see why waiting for the random defective early CPU to come up is
>>>>>>>> better than waiting for all the early CPUs to come up and then deciding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kernel-mode NEON aside, the status of this cap should not matter until
>>>>>>>> we enter userspace for the first time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only issue is if e.g., crypto drivers that can use kernel-mode NEON
>>>>>>>> probe for it before all early CPUs are up, and so cache the wrong
>>>>>>>> decision.  The current approach doesn't cope with that anyway AFAICT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This approach does in fact. With LOCAL_CPU scope, the moment a defective
>>>>>>> CPU turns up, we mark the "capability" and thus the kernel cannot use
>>>>>>> the neon then onwards, unlike the existing case where we have time till
>>>>>>> we boot all the CPUs (even when the boot CPU may be defective).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess that makes sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm now wondering what happens if anything tries to use kernel-mode NEON
>>>>>> before SVE is initialised -- which doesn't happen until cpufeatures
>>>>>> configures the system features.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think your proposed change makes anything worse here, but it may
>>>>>> need looking into.
>>>>>
>>>>> We could throw in a WARN_ON() in kernel_neon() to make sure that the SVE
>>>>> is initialised ?
>>>>
>>>> Could do, at least as an experiment.
>>>>
>>>> Ard, do you have any thoughts on this?
>>>>
>>>
>>> All in-kernel NEON code checks whether the NEON is usable, so I'd
>>> expect that check to return 'false' if it is too early in the boot for
>>> the NEON to be used at all.
>>
>> My concern is that the check may be done once, at probe time, for crypto
>> drivers.  If probing happens before system_supports_fpsimd() has
>> stabilised, we may be stuck with the wrong probe decision.
>>
>> So: are crypto drivers and kernel_mode_neon() users definitely only
>> probed _after_ all early CPUs are up?
>>
> 
> Isn't SMP already up when initcalls are processed?

Not all of them. Booting with initcall_debug=1 shows the following :

--

  // trimmed //

[    0.000000] NR_IRQS:64 nr_irqs:64 0 
 
 

[    0.000000] GIC: Using split EOI/Deactivate mode 
 
 

[    0.000000] CPU0: found redistributor 0 region 0:0x000000002f100000 
 
 

[    0.000000] Architected cp15 timer(s) running at 100.00MHz (phys). 
 
 

[    0.000000] clocksource: arch_sys_counter: mask: 0xffffffffffffff max_cycles: 
0x171024e7e0, max_idle_ns: 440795205315 ns
[    0.000029] sched_clock: 56 bits at 100MHz, resolution 10ns, wraps every 
4398046511100ns
[    0.000989] Console: colour dummy device 80x25 

[    0.001049] Calibrating delay loop (skipped), value calculated using timer 
frequency.. 200.00 BogoMIPS (lpj=400000)
[    0.001149] pid_max: default: 32768 minimum: 301 

[    0.001549] Security Framework initialized 

[    0.001802] Mount-cache hash table entries: 8192 (order: 4, 65536 bytes) 

[    0.001849] Mountpoint-cache hash table entries: 8192 (order: 4, 65536 bytes) 

[    0.004949] Initializing cgroup subsys io
[    0.005042] Initializing cgroup subsys memory
[    0.005079] Initializing cgroup subsys devices
[    0.005149] Initializing cgroup subsys perf_event
[    0.005255] Initializing cgroup subsys hugetlb
[    0.005255] Initializing cgroup subsys pids

[    0.006002] calling  cpu_suspend_init+0x0/0x78 @ 1 

[    0.006062] initcall cpu_suspend_init+0x0/0x78 returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.006149] calling  arm64_enable_runtime_services+0x0/0x200 @ 1
[    0.006225] EFI services will not be available. 

[    0.006249] initcall arm64_enable_runtime_services+0x0/0x200 returned 0 after 
0 usecs
[    0.006389] calling  asids_init+0x0/0xf8 @ 1
[    0.006449] ASID allocator initialised with 65536 entries 

[    0.006535] initcall asids_init+0x0/0xf8 returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.006553] calling  xen_guest_init+0x0/0x1d8 @ 1 

[    0.006649] initcall xen_guest_init+0x0/0x1d8 returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.006749] calling  spawn_ksoftirqd+0x0/0x40 @ 1 

[    0.007749] initcall spawn_ksoftirqd+0x0/0x40 returned 0 after 3906 usecs
[    0.007864] calling  init_workqueues+0x0/0x3ec @ 1 

[    0.019869] initcall init_workqueues+0x0/0x3ec returned 0 after 11718 usecs
[    0.019988] calling  migration_init+0x0/0x84 @ 1 

[    0.020082] initcall migration_init+0x0/0x84 returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.020189] calling  check_cpu_stall_init+0x0/0x28 @ 1 

[    0.020316] initcall check_cpu_stall_init+0x0/0x28 returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.020449] calling  rcu_spawn_gp_kthread+0x0/0x12c @ 1 

[    0.020971] initcall rcu_spawn_gp_kthread+0x0/0x12c returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.021049] calling  cpu_stop_init+0x0/0xe0 @ 1 

[    0.023815] initcall cpu_stop_init+0x0/0xe0 returned 0 after 3906 usecs
[    0.023922] calling  jump_label_init_module+0x0/0x20 @ 1 

[    0.023949] initcall jump_label_init_module+0x0/0x20 returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.024084] calling  its_pci_msi_init+0x0/0xec @ 1 

[    0.024249] /interrupt-controller@2f000000/its@2f020000: unable to locate ITS 
domain
[    0.024349] initcall its_pci_msi_init+0x0/0xec returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.024455] calling  its_pmsi_init+0x0/0xec @ 1 

[    0.024576] /interrupt-controller@2f000000/its@2f020000: unable to locate ITS 
domain
[    0.024669] initcall its_pmsi_init+0x0/0xec returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.024849] calling  tegra_init_fuse+0x0/0x150 @ 1 

[    0.025095] initcall tegra_init_fuse+0x0/0x150 returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.025231] calling  tegra_pmc_early_init+0x0/0xfc @ 1 

[    0.025749] initcall tegra_pmc_early_init+0x0/0xfc returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.025886] calling  rand_initialize+0x0/0x40 @ 1 

[    0.026849] initcall rand_initialize+0x0/0x40 returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.026949] calling  dummy_timer_register+0x0/0x54 @ 1 

[    0.027033] initcall dummy_timer_register+0x0/0x54 returned 0 after 0 usecs


[    0.035949] Detected PIPT I-cache on CPU1 

[    0.036049] CPU1: found redistributor 1 region 0:0x000000002f120000
[    0.036082] CPU1: Booted secondary processor [410fd0f0]
[    0.048049] Detected PIPT I-cache on CPU2 

[    0.048149] CPU2: found redistributor 2 region 0:0x000000002f140000
[    0.048168] CPU2: Booted secondary processor [410fd0f0]
[    0.060249] Detected PIPT I-cache on CPU3 

[    0.060349] CPU3: found redistributor 3 region 0:0x000000002f160000
[    0.060402] CPU3: Booted secondary processor [410fd0f0]
[    0.060620] Brought up 4 CPUs
[    0.060949] SMP: Total of 4 processors activated.


Cheers
Suzuki

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@arm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
	"will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: cpufeature: Fix the type of no FP/SIMD capability
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 14:03:05 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4b4ead8e-383e-67ee-672d-247a52f6c7f3@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu_=jw94Hj5Vo=5w+hb5RcPR4SQvxOM02WQr9hDhyzE67g@mail.gmail.com>



On 15/10/2019 11:30, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 12:25, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 06:57:30PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 17:50, Dave P Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 04:45:40PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 14/10/2019 15:52, Dave Martin wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 06:28:43PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/10/2019 15:21, Dave Martin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 01:13:18PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > Hi Dave
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/10/2019 12:36, Dave Martin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:15:15PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The NO_FPSIMD capability is defined with scope SYSTEM, which implies
>>>>>>>>>>> that the "absence" of FP/SIMD on at least one CPU is detected only
>>>>>>>>>>> after all the SMP CPUs are brought up. However, we use the status
>>>>>>>>>>> of this capability for every context switch. So, let us change
>>>>>>>>>>> the scop to LOCAL_CPU to allow the detection of this capability
>>>>>>>>>>> as and when the first CPU without FP is brought up.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also, the current type allows hotplugged CPU to be brought up without
>>>>>>>>>>> FP/SIMD when all the current CPUs have FP/SIMD and we have the userspace
>>>>>>>>>>> up. Fix both of these issues by changing the capability to
>>>>>>>>>>> BOOT_RESTRICTED_LOCAL_CPU_FEATURE.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Fixes: 82e0191a1aa11abf ("arm64: Support systems without FP/ASIMD")
>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>    arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>>>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>>>>>>>>>>> index 9323bcc40a58..0f9eace6c64b 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1361,7 +1361,7 @@ static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_features[] = {
>>>>>>>>>>>         {
>>>>>>>>>>>                 /* FP/SIMD is not implemented */
>>>>>>>>>>>                 .capability = ARM64_HAS_NO_FPSIMD,
>>>>>>>>>>> -              .type = ARM64_CPUCAP_SYSTEM_FEATURE,
>>>>>>>>>>> +              .type = ARM64_CPUCAP_BOOT_RESTRICTED_CPU_LOCAL_FEATURE,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ARM64_HAS_NO_FPSIMD is really a disability, not a capability.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Although we have other things that smell like this (CPU errata for
>>>>>>>>>> example), I wonder whether inverting the meaning in the case would
>>>>>>>>>> make the situation easier to understand.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is indeed a disability, more on that below.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, we'd have ARM64_HAS_FPSIMD, with a minimum (signed) feature field
>>>>>>>>>> value of 0.  Then this just looks like an ARM64_CPUCAP_SYSTEM_FEATURE
>>>>>>>>>> IIUC.  We'd just need to invert the sense of the check in
>>>>>>>>>> system_supports_fpsimd().
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is particularly something we want to avoid with this patch. We want
>>>>>>>>> to make sure that we have the up-to-date status of the disability right
>>>>>>>>> when it happens. i.e, a CPU without FP/SIMD is brought up. With SYSTEM_FEATURE
>>>>>>>>> you have to wait until we bring all the CPUs up. Also, for HAS_FPSIMD,
>>>>>>>>> you must wait until all the CPUs are up, unlike the negated capability.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see why waiting for the random defective early CPU to come up is
>>>>>>>> better than waiting for all the early CPUs to come up and then deciding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kernel-mode NEON aside, the status of this cap should not matter until
>>>>>>>> we enter userspace for the first time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only issue is if e.g., crypto drivers that can use kernel-mode NEON
>>>>>>>> probe for it before all early CPUs are up, and so cache the wrong
>>>>>>>> decision.  The current approach doesn't cope with that anyway AFAICT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This approach does in fact. With LOCAL_CPU scope, the moment a defective
>>>>>>> CPU turns up, we mark the "capability" and thus the kernel cannot use
>>>>>>> the neon then onwards, unlike the existing case where we have time till
>>>>>>> we boot all the CPUs (even when the boot CPU may be defective).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess that makes sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm now wondering what happens if anything tries to use kernel-mode NEON
>>>>>> before SVE is initialised -- which doesn't happen until cpufeatures
>>>>>> configures the system features.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think your proposed change makes anything worse here, but it may
>>>>>> need looking into.
>>>>>
>>>>> We could throw in a WARN_ON() in kernel_neon() to make sure that the SVE
>>>>> is initialised ?
>>>>
>>>> Could do, at least as an experiment.
>>>>
>>>> Ard, do you have any thoughts on this?
>>>>
>>>
>>> All in-kernel NEON code checks whether the NEON is usable, so I'd
>>> expect that check to return 'false' if it is too early in the boot for
>>> the NEON to be used at all.
>>
>> My concern is that the check may be done once, at probe time, for crypto
>> drivers.  If probing happens before system_supports_fpsimd() has
>> stabilised, we may be stuck with the wrong probe decision.
>>
>> So: are crypto drivers and kernel_mode_neon() users definitely only
>> probed _after_ all early CPUs are up?
>>
> 
> Isn't SMP already up when initcalls are processed?

Not all of them. Booting with initcall_debug=1 shows the following :

--

  // trimmed //

[    0.000000] NR_IRQS:64 nr_irqs:64 0 
 
 

[    0.000000] GIC: Using split EOI/Deactivate mode 
 
 

[    0.000000] CPU0: found redistributor 0 region 0:0x000000002f100000 
 
 

[    0.000000] Architected cp15 timer(s) running at 100.00MHz (phys). 
 
 

[    0.000000] clocksource: arch_sys_counter: mask: 0xffffffffffffff max_cycles: 
0x171024e7e0, max_idle_ns: 440795205315 ns
[    0.000029] sched_clock: 56 bits at 100MHz, resolution 10ns, wraps every 
4398046511100ns
[    0.000989] Console: colour dummy device 80x25 

[    0.001049] Calibrating delay loop (skipped), value calculated using timer 
frequency.. 200.00 BogoMIPS (lpj=400000)
[    0.001149] pid_max: default: 32768 minimum: 301 

[    0.001549] Security Framework initialized 

[    0.001802] Mount-cache hash table entries: 8192 (order: 4, 65536 bytes) 

[    0.001849] Mountpoint-cache hash table entries: 8192 (order: 4, 65536 bytes) 

[    0.004949] Initializing cgroup subsys io
[    0.005042] Initializing cgroup subsys memory
[    0.005079] Initializing cgroup subsys devices
[    0.005149] Initializing cgroup subsys perf_event
[    0.005255] Initializing cgroup subsys hugetlb
[    0.005255] Initializing cgroup subsys pids

[    0.006002] calling  cpu_suspend_init+0x0/0x78 @ 1 

[    0.006062] initcall cpu_suspend_init+0x0/0x78 returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.006149] calling  arm64_enable_runtime_services+0x0/0x200 @ 1
[    0.006225] EFI services will not be available. 

[    0.006249] initcall arm64_enable_runtime_services+0x0/0x200 returned 0 after 
0 usecs
[    0.006389] calling  asids_init+0x0/0xf8 @ 1
[    0.006449] ASID allocator initialised with 65536 entries 

[    0.006535] initcall asids_init+0x0/0xf8 returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.006553] calling  xen_guest_init+0x0/0x1d8 @ 1 

[    0.006649] initcall xen_guest_init+0x0/0x1d8 returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.006749] calling  spawn_ksoftirqd+0x0/0x40 @ 1 

[    0.007749] initcall spawn_ksoftirqd+0x0/0x40 returned 0 after 3906 usecs
[    0.007864] calling  init_workqueues+0x0/0x3ec @ 1 

[    0.019869] initcall init_workqueues+0x0/0x3ec returned 0 after 11718 usecs
[    0.019988] calling  migration_init+0x0/0x84 @ 1 

[    0.020082] initcall migration_init+0x0/0x84 returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.020189] calling  check_cpu_stall_init+0x0/0x28 @ 1 

[    0.020316] initcall check_cpu_stall_init+0x0/0x28 returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.020449] calling  rcu_spawn_gp_kthread+0x0/0x12c @ 1 

[    0.020971] initcall rcu_spawn_gp_kthread+0x0/0x12c returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.021049] calling  cpu_stop_init+0x0/0xe0 @ 1 

[    0.023815] initcall cpu_stop_init+0x0/0xe0 returned 0 after 3906 usecs
[    0.023922] calling  jump_label_init_module+0x0/0x20 @ 1 

[    0.023949] initcall jump_label_init_module+0x0/0x20 returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.024084] calling  its_pci_msi_init+0x0/0xec @ 1 

[    0.024249] /interrupt-controller@2f000000/its@2f020000: unable to locate ITS 
domain
[    0.024349] initcall its_pci_msi_init+0x0/0xec returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.024455] calling  its_pmsi_init+0x0/0xec @ 1 

[    0.024576] /interrupt-controller@2f000000/its@2f020000: unable to locate ITS 
domain
[    0.024669] initcall its_pmsi_init+0x0/0xec returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.024849] calling  tegra_init_fuse+0x0/0x150 @ 1 

[    0.025095] initcall tegra_init_fuse+0x0/0x150 returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.025231] calling  tegra_pmc_early_init+0x0/0xfc @ 1 

[    0.025749] initcall tegra_pmc_early_init+0x0/0xfc returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.025886] calling  rand_initialize+0x0/0x40 @ 1 

[    0.026849] initcall rand_initialize+0x0/0x40 returned 0 after 0 usecs
[    0.026949] calling  dummy_timer_register+0x0/0x54 @ 1 

[    0.027033] initcall dummy_timer_register+0x0/0x54 returned 0 after 0 usecs


[    0.035949] Detected PIPT I-cache on CPU1 

[    0.036049] CPU1: found redistributor 1 region 0:0x000000002f120000
[    0.036082] CPU1: Booted secondary processor [410fd0f0]
[    0.048049] Detected PIPT I-cache on CPU2 

[    0.048149] CPU2: found redistributor 2 region 0:0x000000002f140000
[    0.048168] CPU2: Booted secondary processor [410fd0f0]
[    0.060249] Detected PIPT I-cache on CPU3 

[    0.060349] CPU3: found redistributor 3 region 0:0x000000002f160000
[    0.060402] CPU3: Booted secondary processor [410fd0f0]
[    0.060620] Brought up 4 CPUs
[    0.060949] SMP: Total of 4 processors activated.


Cheers
Suzuki

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

  reply	other threads:[~2019-10-15 13:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-10 17:15 [PATCH 0/3] arm64: Fix support for systems without FP/SIMD Suzuki K Poulose
2019-10-10 17:15 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2019-10-10 17:15 ` [PATCH 1/3] arm64: cpufeature: Fix the type of no FP/SIMD capability Suzuki K Poulose
2019-10-10 17:15   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2019-10-11 11:36   ` Dave Martin
2019-10-11 11:36     ` Dave Martin
2019-10-11 12:13     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2019-10-11 12:13       ` Suzuki K Poulose
2019-10-11 14:21       ` Dave Martin
2019-10-11 14:21         ` Dave Martin
2019-10-11 17:28         ` Suzuki K Poulose
2019-10-11 17:28           ` Suzuki K Poulose
2019-10-14 14:52           ` Dave Martin
2019-10-14 14:52             ` Dave Martin
2019-10-14 15:45             ` Suzuki K Poulose
2019-10-14 15:45               ` Suzuki K Poulose
2019-10-14 15:50               ` Dave P Martin
2019-10-14 15:50                 ` Dave P Martin
2019-10-14 16:57                 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-10-14 16:57                   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-10-15  9:44                   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2019-10-15  9:44                     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2019-10-15  9:52                     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-10-15  9:52                       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-10-15 10:24                   ` Dave Martin
2019-10-15 10:24                     ` Dave Martin
2019-10-15 10:30                     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-10-15 10:30                       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-10-15 13:03                       ` Suzuki K Poulose [this message]
2019-10-15 13:03                         ` Suzuki K Poulose
2019-10-15 13:11                         ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-10-15 13:11                           ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-10-15 14:05                       ` Dave Martin
2019-10-15 14:05                         ` Dave Martin
2019-10-10 17:15 ` [PATCH 2/3] arm64: nofpsmid: Clear TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE flag for early tasks Suzuki K Poulose
2019-10-10 17:15   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2019-10-11 11:26   ` Dave Martin
2019-10-11 11:26     ` Dave Martin
2019-10-17 12:42     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2019-10-17 12:42       ` Suzuki K Poulose
2019-10-17 16:09       ` Dave Martin
2019-10-17 16:09         ` Dave Martin
2019-10-10 17:15 ` [PATCH 3/3] arm64: cpufeature: Set the FP/SIMD compat HWCAP bits properly Suzuki K Poulose
2019-10-10 17:15   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2019-10-17  0:06 ` [PATCH 0/3] arm64: Fix support for systems without FP/SIMD Will Deacon
2019-10-17  0:06   ` Will Deacon

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=4b4ead8e-383e-67ee-672d-247a52f6c7f3@arm.com \
    --to=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=Catalin.Marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \
    --cc=Mark.Rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=will@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.