linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: "Zhang, Lei" <zhang.lei@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "'catalin.marinas@arm.com'" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"'will.deacon@arm.com'" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	"'linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org'" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64 memory accesses may cause undefined fault on Fujitsu-A64FX
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 14:17:59 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190118141758.GC12256@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8898674D84E3B24BA3A2D289B872026A6A29FA8F@G01JPEXMBKW03>

Hi,

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 12:52:38PM +0000, Zhang, Lei wrote:
> On some variants of the Fujitsu-A64FX cores ver(1.0, 1.1), 
> memory accesses may cause undefined fault (Data abort, DFSC=0b111111).

So that we can better understand the problem, could you please let us
know the following:

* Under what conditions can the fault occur? e.g. is this in place of
  some other fault, or completely spurious?

* Does this only occur for data abort? i.e. not instruction aborts?

* How often does this fault occur?

* Does this only apply to Stage-1, or can the same faults be taken at
  Stage-2?

> This problem will be fixed by next version of Fujitsu-A64FX.
> I would like to post a workaround to avoid this problem 
> on existing version.
> The workaround is to replace the fault handler for Data abort
> DFSC=0b111111 with a new one to ignore this undefined fault, 
> which will only affect the Fujitsu-A64FX.
> 
> I have tested this patch on A64FX and QEMU(2.9.0).The test passed.
> I will test this patch on ThunderX and report the result.
> I fully appreciate that if someone can test this patch on different 
> chips to verity no harmful effect on other chips.
> 
> If there is no problem on other chips, please merge this patch.
> 
> Below is my patch based on linux-5.0-rc2.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lei Zhang <zhang.lei@jp.fujitsu.com>
> Tested-by: Lei Zhang <zhang.lei@jp.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/arm64/silicon-errata.txt |    1 +
>  arch/arm64/Kconfig                     |   13 +++++++++++++
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h       |    4 ++++
>  arch/arm64/mm/fault.c                  |   23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 41 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/arm64/silicon-errata.txt b/Documentation/arm64/silicon-errata.txt
> index 1f09d04..26d64e9 100644
> --- a/Documentation/arm64/silicon-errata.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/arm64/silicon-errata.txt
> @@ -80,3 +80,4 @@ stable kernels.
>  | Qualcomm Tech. | Falkor v1       | E1009           | QCOM_FALKOR_ERRATUM_1009    |
>  | Qualcomm Tech. | QDF2400 ITS     | E0065           | QCOM_QDF2400_ERRATUM_0065   |
>  | Qualcomm Tech. | Falkor v{1,2}   | E1041           | QCOM_FALKOR_ERRATUM_1041    |
> +| Fujitsu        | A64FX           | E#010001        | FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001      |
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> index a4168d3..9c09b2b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> @@ -643,6 +643,19 @@ config QCOM_FALKOR_ERRATUM_E1041
>  
>  	  If unsure, say Y.
>  
> +config FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001
> +	bool "Fujitsu-A64FX erratum E#010001: Undefined fault may occur wrongly"
> +	default y
> +	help
> +	  This option adds workaround for Fujitsu-A64FX erratum E#010001.
> +	  On some variants of the Fujitsu-A64FX cores ver(1.0, 1.1), memory accesses
> +	  may cause undefined fault (Data abort, DFSC=0b111111).
> +	  The workaround is to replace the fault handler for Data abort DFSC=0b111111
> +	  with a new one to ignore this undefined fault, which will only affect
> +	  the Fujitsu-A64FX.
> +
> +	  If unsure, say Y.
> +
>  endmenu
>  
>  
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h
> index 951ed1a..166aa50 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h
> @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@
>  #define ARM_CPU_IMP_BRCM		0x42
>  #define ARM_CPU_IMP_QCOM		0x51
>  #define ARM_CPU_IMP_NVIDIA		0x4E
> +#define ARM_CPU_IMP_FUJITSU		0x46
>  
>  #define ARM_CPU_PART_AEM_V8		0xD0F
>  #define ARM_CPU_PART_FOUNDATION		0xD00
> @@ -104,6 +105,8 @@
>  #define NVIDIA_CPU_PART_DENVER		0x003
>  #define NVIDIA_CPU_PART_CARMEL		0x004
>  
> +#define FUJTISU_CPU_PART_A64FX		0x001
> +
>  #define MIDR_CORTEX_A53 MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_ARM, ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A53)
>  #define MIDR_CORTEX_A57 MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_ARM, ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A57)
>  #define MIDR_CORTEX_A72 MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_ARM, ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A72)
> @@ -122,6 +125,7 @@
>  #define MIDR_QCOM_KRYO MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_QCOM, QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO)
>  #define MIDR_NVIDIA_DENVER MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_NVIDIA, NVIDIA_CPU_PART_DENVER)
>  #define MIDR_NVIDIA_CARMEL MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_NVIDIA, NVIDIA_CPU_PART_CARMEL)
> +#define MIDR_FUJITSU_A64FX MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_FUJITSU, FUJTISU_CPU_PART_A64FX)
>  
>  #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>  
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> index efb7b2c..c465b2f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> @@ -666,6 +666,25 @@ static int do_sea(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static bool do_bad_ignore_first = FALSE;
> +static int do_bad_ignore(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> +	if (do_bad_ignore_first == TRUE)
> +		return 0;
> +	if (do_bad_ignore_first == FALSE) {
> +		unsigned int current_cpu_midr = read_cpuid_id();
> +		const struct midr_range fujitsu_a64fx_midr_range = {
> +			MIDR_FUJITSU_A64FX, MIDR_CPU_VAR_REV(0, 0), MIDR_CPU_VAR_REV(1, 0)
> +		};
> +
> +		if (is_midr_in_range(current_cpu_midr, &fujitsu_a64fx_midr_range) == TRUE) {
> +			do_bad_ignore_first = TRUE;
> +			return 0;
> +		}
> +	}
> +	return 1; /* "fault" same as do_bad */
> +}

I'm a bit surprised by the single retry. Is there any guarantee that a
thread will eventually stop delivering this fault code?

Note that all CPUs and threads share the do_bad_ignore_first variable,
so this is going to behave non-deterministically and kill threads in
some cases.

This code is also preemptible, so checking the MIDR here doesn't make
much sense. Either this is always uniform (and we can check once in the
errata framework), or it's variable (e.g. on a big.LITTLE system) and we
need to avoid preemption up until this point.

Rather than dynamically checking the MIDR, this should use the errata
framework, and if any A64FX CPU is discovered, set an erratum cap like
ARM64_WORKAROUND_CONFIG_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001, so we can do something
like:

static int do_bad_unknown_63(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
			     struct pt_regs *regs)
{
	/*
	 * On some variants of the Fujitsu-A64FX cores ver(1.0, 1.1),
	 * memory accesses may spuriously trigger data aborts with
	 * DFSC=0b111111.
	 */
	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001) && 
	    cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_WORKAROUND_E010001))
	    	return 0;

	return do_bad(addr, esr, regs);
}

> +
>  static const struct fault_info fault_info[] = {
>  	{ do_bad,		SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL,	"ttbr address size fault"	},
>  	{ do_bad,		SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL,	"level 1 address size fault"	},
> @@ -730,7 +749,11 @@ static int do_sea(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
>  	{ do_bad,		SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL,	"unknown 60"			},
>  	{ do_bad,		SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL,	"section domain fault"		},
>  	{ do_bad,		SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL,	"page domain fault"		},
> +#ifdef	CONFIG_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001
> +	{ do_bad_ignore,	SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL,	"unknown 63"			},
> +#else
>  	{ do_bad,		SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL,	"unknown 63"			},
> +#endif

... with this unconditionally using do_bad_unknown_63.

Thanks,
Mark.

  reply	other threads:[~2019-01-18 14:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-01-18 12:52 [PATCH] arm64 memory accesses may cause undefined fault on Fujitsu-A64FX Zhang, Lei
2019-01-18 14:17 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2019-01-22  2:05   ` Zhang, Lei
2019-01-22 14:42     ` James Morse
2019-01-22 15:23     ` Mark Rutland
2019-01-23 12:51       ` Zhang, Lei
2019-01-25  6:51         ` Zhang, Lei

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=20190118141758.GC12256@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com \
    --to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=zhang.lei@jp.fujitsu.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).