Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: cpufeature: add cpus_have_final_cap()

From: Suzuki Kuruppassery Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, maz@kernel.org, will@kernel.org,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: cpufeature: add cpus_have_final_cap()
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 16:37:53 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <047f1cd2-3537-6671-233c-69f1758684bf@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200210122708.38826-2-mark.rutland@arm.com>

On 10/02/2020 12:27, Mark Rutland wrote:
> When cpus_have_const_cap() was originally introduced it was intended to
> be safe in hyp context, where it is not safe to access the cpu_hwcaps
> array as cpus_have_cap() did. For more details see commit:
> 
>    a4023f682739439b ("arm64: Add hypervisor safe helper for checking constant capabilities")
> 
> We then made use of cpus_have_const_cap() throughout the kernel.
> 
> Subsequently, we had to defer updating the static_key associated with
> each capability in order to avoid lockdep complaints. To avoid breaking
> kernel-wide usage of cpus_have_const_cap(), this was updated to fall
> back to the cpu_hwcaps array if called before the static_keys were
> updated. As the kvm hyp code was only called later than this, the
> fallback is redundant but not functionally harmful. For more details,
> see commit:
> 
>    63a1e1c95e60e798 ("arm64/cpufeature: don't use mutex in bringup path")
> 
> Today we have more users of cpus_have_const_cap() which are only called
> once the relevant static keys are initialized, and it would be
> beneficial to avoid the redundant code.
> 
> To that end, this patch adds a new cpus_have_final_cap(), helper which
> is intend to be used in code which is only run once capabilities have
> been finalized, and will never check the cpus_hwcap array. This helps
> the compiler to generate better code as it no longer needs to generate
> code to address and test the cpus_hwcap array. To help catch misuse,
> cpus_have_final_cap() will BUG() if called before capabilities are
> finalized.
> 
> In hyp context, BUG() will result in a hyp panic, but the specific BUG()
> instance will not be identified in the usual way.
> 
> Comments are added to the various cpus_have_*_cap() helpers to describe
> the constraints on when they can be used. For clarity cpus_have_cap() is
> moved above the other helpers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> Cc: Suzuki Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> ---

...

> +/*
> + * Test for a capability without a runtime check.
> + *
> + * Before capabilities are finalized, this will BUG().
> + * After capabilities are finalized, this is patched to avoid a runtime check.
> + *
> + * @num must be a compile-time constant.
> + */
> +static __always_inline bool cpus_have_final_cap(int num)
> +{
> +	if (static_branch_likely(&arm64_const_caps_ready))

We have introduced system_capabilities_finalized() helper and may be
it is a good idea to use it here, to make it more clear.

Either ways :

Reviewed-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm