[lkml]   [2017]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 06/18] arm64: arch_timer: Add infrastructure for multiple erratum detection methods
On 28/03/17 14:34, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 02:07:30PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 27/03/17 08:56, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 01:51:47PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> [ ... ]
>>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>>> I have been through the driver after applying the patchset. Again thanks for
>>>>> taking care of this. It is not a simple issue to solve, so here is my minor
>>>>> contribution.
>>>>> The resulting code sounds like over-engineered because the errata check and its
>>>>> workaround are done at the same place/moment, that forces to deal with an array
>>>>> with element from different origin.
>>>>> I understand you wanted to create a single array to handle the errata
>>>>> information from the DT, ACPI and CAPS. But IMHO, it does not fit well.
>>>>> I would suggest to create 3 arrays: ACPI, DT and CAPS.
>>>>> Those arrays contains the errata id *and* an unique private id.
>>>>> At boot time, you go through the corresponding array and fill a list of
>>>>> detected errata with the private id.
>>>>> On the other side, an array with the private id and its workaround makes the
>>>>> assocation. The private id is the contract between the errata and the workaround.
>>>>> So the errata handling will occur in two steps:
>>>>> 1. Boot => errata detection
>>>>> 2. CPU up => workaround put in place
>>>>> With this approach, you can write everything on a per cpu basis, getting rid of
>>>>> 'global' / 'local'.
>>>>> What is this different from your approach ?
>>>>> - no match_id
>>>>> - clear separation of errata and workaround
>>>>> - Simpler code
>>>>> - clear the scene for a more generic errata framework
>>>>> That said, now it would make sense to create a generic errata framework to be
>>>>> filled by the different arch at boot time and retrieve from the different
>>>>> subsystem in an agnostic way. Well, may be that is a long term suggestion.
>>>>> What do you think ?
>>>> I don't think this buys us anything at all. Separating detection and
>>>> enablement is not always feasible. In your example above, you assume
>>>> that all errata are detectable at boot time. Consider that with CPU
>>>> hotplug, we can bring up a new core at any time, possibly with an
>>>> erratum that you haven't detected yet.
>>> I guess it has to pass through an init function before being powered on.
>> Sure, I never said that the CPU would appear ex-nihilo. But that
>> somewhat defeats your boot detection vs workaround application construct.
>>>> And even then, what do we get: we trade a simple match ID for a list we
>>>> build at runtime, another private ID, and additional code to perform
>>>> that match. The gain is not obvious to me...
>>>> What would such a generic errata framework look like? A table containing
>>>> match functions returning a boolean, used to decide whether you need to
>>>> call yet another function with a bunch of arbitrary parameters.
>>>> In my experience, such a framework will be either an empty shell
>>>> (because you need to keep it as generic as possible), or will be riddled
>>>> with data structures ending up being the union of all the possible cases
>>>> you've encountered in the kernel. Not a pretty sight.
>>> I disagree but I can understand you don't see the point to write a generic
>>> framework while the patchset does the job.
>> It is not about this series. Far from it. I'm convinced that a generic
>> errata framework cannot be written without being either completely
>> devoid of any useful semantic, or be the union of all possible
>> semantics. There is simply too much diversity in the problem space. But
>> feel free to prove me wrong! ;-)
> I still think we can write something generic. However, as I have just recently
> went through the errata handling, I'm certainly missing something. So perhaps,
> if I have spare time, I can have a closer look and write some skeleton.
>>> Let's refocus on the patchset itself.
>>> Can you do the change to have a percpu basis errata in order to remove
>>> local/global ?
>>> Something as below:
>>> static
>>> -bool arch_timer_check_global_cap_erratum(const struct arch_timer_erratum_workaround *wa,
>>> - const void *arg)
>>> +bool arch_timer_check_cap_erratum(const struct arch_timer_erratum_workaround *wa,
>>> + const void *arg)
>>> {
>>> - return cpus_have_cap((uintptr_t)wa->id);
>>> + return cpus_have_cap((uintptr_t)wa->id) | this_cpu_has_cap((uintptr_t)wa->id);
>> Not quite. Here, you're making all capability-based errata to be be
>> global (if a single CPU in the system has a capability, then by
>> transitivity cpus_have_cap returns true). If that's a big-little system,
>> you end-up applying the workaround to all CPUs, including those unaffected.
>> I'd rather drop cpus_have_cap altogether and rely on individual CPU
>> matching (since we don't have a need for a global capability erratum
>> handling yet).
> Ok, thanks.

Quick update. I've just implemented this, and found out that getting rid
of local/global has an unfortunate effect:

Since we only probe the global errata (using ACPI for example) on the
boot CPU path, we lose propagation of the erratum across the secondary
CPUs. One way of solving this is to convert the secondary boot path to
be aware of DT vs ACPI vs detection method of the month. Which isn't
easy, since by the time we boot secondary CPUs, we don't have the
pointers to the various ACPI tables anymore. Also, assuming we were
careful and saved the pointers, the tables may have been unmapped. Fun.

Given that, I'm reintroducing the global/local flag for good. It's not
pretty, but it doesn't require reinventing new ways of dealing with CPUs
booting late.


Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-03-28 16:09    [W:0.298 / U:1.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site