From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751191AbeAVOOv (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:14:51 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:59378 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751087AbeAVOOt (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:14:49 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] arm64: cpufeature: Allow early detect of specific features To: Marc Zyngier , Daniel Thompson , Suzuki K Poulose Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, james.morse@arm.com, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon References: <1516190084-18978-1-git-send-email-julien.thierry@arm.com> <1516190084-18978-2-git-send-email-julien.thierry@arm.com> <2f2a406b-fddf-6c30-4052-650f57ac317a@arm.com> <20180122133848.546zixs3crkwvuid@oak.lan> <65f82425-977d-49f5-b9c5-b678d90984cf@arm.com> From: Julien Thierry Message-ID: <973f14ae-df25-f8e0-56e6-0b65e62b64e2@arm.com> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:14:46 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <65f82425-977d-49f5-b9c5-b678d90984cf@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 22/01/18 13:57, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 22/01/18 13:38, Daniel Thompson wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:21:55PM +0000, Julien Thierry wrote: >>> On 22/01/18 12:05, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: >>>> On 17/01/18 11:54, Julien Thierry wrote: >>>>> From: Daniel Thompson >>>>> >>>>> Currently it is not possible to detect features of the boot CPU >>>>> until the other CPUs have been brought up. >>>>> >>>>> This prevents us from reacting to features of the boot CPU until >>>>> fairly late in the boot process. To solve this we allow a subset >>>>> of features (that are likely to be common to all clusters) to be >>>>> detected based on the boot CPU alone. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson >>>>> [julien.thierry@arm.com: check non-boot cpu missing early features, avoid >>>>> duplicates between early features and normal >>>>> features] >>>>> Signed-off-by: Julien Thierry >>>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas >>>>> Cc: Will Deacon >>>>> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose >>>>> --- >>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 69 >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- >>>>> 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c >>>>> b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c >>>>> index a73a592..6698404 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c >>>>> @@ -52,6 +52,8 @@ >>>>> DECLARE_BITMAP(cpu_hwcaps, ARM64_NCAPS); >>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpu_hwcaps); >>>>> >>>>> +static void __init setup_early_feature_capabilities(void); >>>>> + >>>>> /* >>>>> * Flag to indicate if we have computed the system wide >>>>> * capabilities based on the boot time active CPUs. This >>>>> @@ -542,6 +544,8 @@ void __init init_cpu_features(struct >>>>> cpuinfo_arm64 *info) >>>>> init_cpu_ftr_reg(SYS_ZCR_EL1, info->reg_zcr); >>>>> sve_init_vq_map(); >>>>> } >>>>> + >>>>> + setup_early_feature_capabilities(); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> static void update_cpu_ftr_reg(struct arm64_ftr_reg *reg, u64 new) >>>>> @@ -846,7 +850,7 @@ static bool has_no_fpsimd(const struct >>>>> arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int __unus >>>>> ID_AA64PFR0_FP_SHIFT) < 0; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> -static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_features[] = { >>>>> +static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_early_features[] = { >>>>> { >>>>> .desc = "GIC system register CPU interface", >>>>> .capability = ARM64_HAS_SYSREG_GIC_CPUIF, >>>>> @@ -857,6 +861,10 @@ static bool has_no_fpsimd(const struct >>>>> arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int __unus >>>>> .sign = FTR_UNSIGNED, >>>>> .min_field_value = 1, >>>>> }, >>>>> + {} >>>>> +}; >>>>> + >>>> >>>> >>>> Julien, >>>> >>>> One potential problem with this is that we don't have a way >>>> to make this work on a "theoretical" system with and without >>>> GIC system reg interface. i.e, if we don't have the CONFIG >>>> enabled for using ICC system regs for IRQ flags, the kernel >>>> could still panic. I understand this is not a "normal" configuration >>>> but, may be we could make the panic option based on whether >>>> we actually use the system regs early enough ? >>>> >>> >>> I see, however I'm not sure what happens in the GIC drivers if we have a CPU >>> running with a GICv3 and other CPUs with something else... But of course >>> this is not technically limited by the arm64 capabilities handling. >> >> Shouldn't each CPU be sharing the same GIC anyway? It so its not some >> have GICv3+ and some have GICv2. The theoretical system described above >> *has* a GICv3+ but some participants in the cluster are not able to >> talk to it as like a co-processor. > > There is some level of confusion between the GIC CPU interface (which is > really in the CPU) and the GIC itself. You can easily end-up in a > situation where you do have the HW, but it is configured in a way that > prevents you from using it. Case in point: GICv3 with GICv2 > compatibility used in virtualization. > >> The ARM ARM is a little vague about whether, if a GIC implements a >> system register interface, then a core must provide access to it. Even >> so, first question is whether such a system is architecture compliant? > > Again, it is not the GIC that implements the system registers. And no, > these system registers are not required to be accessible (see > ICC_SRE_EL2.Enable == 0 for example). > > So I believe there is value in checking those as early as possible, and > set the expectations accordingly (such as in [1] and [2]). > So in the end, if we boot on a CPU that can access ICC_CPUIF, it looks like we'll prevent bringing up the CPUs that cannot access the ICC_CPUIF, and if we boot on a CPU that cannot access ICC_CPUIF, everything that gets brought up afterwards will be run on GICv2 compatibility mode? We never run different GIC driver on different CPUs, right? In the patch, check_early_cpu_features panics when features don't match, but nothing really prevents us to use cpu_die_early instead. Would that solve the issue Suzuki? Cheers, -- Julien Thierry