From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C4EC4363A for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 09:58:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6D9D223BF for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 09:58:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2896232AbgJVJ6G (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2020 05:58:06 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:52880 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2411154AbgJVJ6F (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2020 05:58:05 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8230DD6E; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 02:58:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e107158-lin (e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.194.78]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 32A923F66E; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 02:58:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:58:01 +0100 From: Qais Yousef To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Will Deacon , Marc Zyngier , "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" , Morten Rasmussen , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Linus Torvalds , James Morse , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] arm64: Export id_aar64fpr0 via sysfs Message-ID: <20201022095801.4xb4xrvxm35cmz5b@e107158-lin> References: <63fead90e91e08a1b173792b06995765@kernel.org> <20201021121559.GB3976@gaia> <20201021144112.GA17912@willie-the-truck> <20201021150313.ecxawwxsowweye43@e107158-lin> <20201021152310.GA18071@willie-the-truck> <20201021160730.komcgrp7q2tly55w@e107158-lin> <20201021172345.GF18071@willie-the-truck> <20201021195736.mj4njbi6pxkbpbyf@e107158-lin> <20201021202626.GA18494@willie-the-truck> <20201022081624.GA1229@gaia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201022081624.GA1229@gaia> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On 10/22/20 09:16, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 09:26:27PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 08:57:36PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote: > > > On 10/21/20 18:23, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 05:07:30PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote: > > > > > > > For example, the new sysctl_enable_asym_32bit could be a cpumask instead of > > > > > > > a bool as it currently is. Or we can make it a cmdline parameter too. > > > > > > > In both cases some admin (bootloader or init process) has to ensure to fill it > > > > > > > correctly for the target platform. The bootloader should be able to read the > > > > > > > registers to figure out the mask. So more weight to make it a cmdline param. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this is adding complexity for the sake of it. I'm much more in > > > > > > > > > > I actually think it reduces complexity. No special ABI to generate the mask > > > > > from the kernel. The same opt-in flag is the cpumask too. > > > > > > > > Maybe I'm misunderstanding your proposal but having a cpumask instead of > > > > > > What I meant is that if we change the requirement to opt-in from a boolean > > > switch > > > > > > sysctl.enable_32bit_asym=1 > > > > > > to require the bootloader/init scripts provide the mask of aarch32 capable cpus > > > > > > sysctl.asym_32bit_cpus=0xf0 > [...] > > > * We don't need a separate API to export which cpus are 32bit capable. > > > They can read it directly from /proc/sys/kernel/asym_32bit_cpus. > > > When it's 0 it means the system is not asymmetric. > > > > I don't see how this is better than a separate cpumask for this purpose. > > It feels like you're trying to overload the control and the identification, > > but that just makes things confusing and hard to use as I now need to know > > which logical CPUs correspond to which physical CPUs in order to set the > > command-line. I tend to disagree with some of the statements. But I'll leave it at that. Whatever makes the ship move :) > I agree. Let's leave the identification to the kernel as it has access > to the CPUID registers and can provide the cpumask. The control in this > case doesn't need to be more than a boolean and its meaning is that the > user knows what it is doing. Thanks -- Qais Yousef