Re: [PATCH v8 15/19] arm64: Prevent offlining first CPU with 32-bit EL0 on mismatched system

From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
	Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
	Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
	Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
	kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 15/19] arm64: Prevent offlining first CPU with 32-bit EL0 on mismatched system
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 13:58:56 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210603125856.GC48596@C02TD0UTHF1T.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210602164719.31777-16-will@kernel.org>

On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 05:47:15PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> If we want to support 32-bit applications, then when we identify a CPU
> with mismatched 32-bit EL0 support we must ensure that we will always
> have an active 32-bit CPU available to us from then on. This is important
> for the scheduler, because is_cpu_allowed() will be constrained to 32-bit
> CPUs for compat tasks and forced migration due to a hotplug event will
> hang if no 32-bit CPUs are available.
> 
> On detecting a mismatch, prevent offlining of either the mismatching CPU
> if it is 32-bit capable, or find the first active 32-bit capable CPU
> otherwise.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> index 4194a47de62d..b31d7a1eaed6 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -2877,15 +2877,33 @@ void __init setup_cpu_features(void)
>  
>  static int enable_mismatched_32bit_el0(unsigned int cpu)
>  {
> +	static int lucky_winner = -1;

This is cute, but could we please give it a meaningful name, e.g.
`pinned_cpu` ?

> +
>  	struct cpuinfo_arm64 *info = &per_cpu(cpu_data, cpu);
>  	bool cpu_32bit = id_aa64pfr0_32bit_el0(info->reg_id_aa64pfr0);
>  
>  	if (cpu_32bit) {
>  		cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_32bit_el0_mask);
>  		static_branch_enable_cpuslocked(&arm64_mismatched_32bit_el0);
> -		setup_elf_hwcaps(compat_elf_hwcaps);
>  	}
>  
> +	if (cpumask_test_cpu(0, cpu_32bit_el0_mask) == cpu_32bit)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	if (lucky_winner >= 0)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * We've detected a mismatch. We need to keep one of our CPUs with
> +	 * 32-bit EL0 online so that is_cpu_allowed() doesn't end up rejecting
> +	 * every CPU in the system for a 32-bit task.
> +	 */
> +	lucky_winner = cpu_32bit ? cpu : cpumask_any_and(cpu_32bit_el0_mask,
> +							 cpu_active_mask);
> +	get_cpu_device(lucky_winner)->offline_disabled = true;
> +	setup_elf_hwcaps(compat_elf_hwcaps);
> +	pr_info("Asymmetric 32-bit EL0 support detected on CPU %u; CPU hot-unplug disabled on CPU %u\n",
> +		cpu, lucky_winner);
>  	return 0;
>  }

I guess this is going to play havoc with kexec and hibernate. :/

Thanks,
Mark.