All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
	Mario Limonciello <Mario.Limonciello@amd.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
	<linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: processor idle: Practically limit "Dummy wait" workaround to old Intel systems
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 20:53:29 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <78d13a19-2806-c8af-573e-7f2625edfab8@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220922184745.3252932-1-dave.hansen@intel.com>

On 9/22/2022 8:47 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 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.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
> Cc: Mario Limonciello <Mario.Limonciello@amd.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
> Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> Reported-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220921063638.2489-1-kprateek.nayak@amd.com/

Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

or do you want me to pick this up?


> ---
>   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 16a1663d02d4..9f40917c49ef 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);
>   }
>   



       reply	other threads:[~2022-09-22 18:53 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 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2022-09-22 18:57   ` [PATCH] ACPI: processor idle: Practically limit "Dummy wait" workaround to old Intel systems 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: x86/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Dave Hansen

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=78d13a19-2806-c8af-573e-7f2625edfab8@intel.com \
    --to=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=Mario.Limonciello@amd.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.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.