Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] arm64: cpufeature: Allow early detect of specific features | From | Marc Zyngier <> | Date | Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:20:28 +0000 |
| |
On 22/01/18 14:14, Julien Thierry wrote: > > > 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 <daniel.thompson@linaro.org> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 <daniel.thompson@linaro.org> >>>>>> [julien.thierry@arm.com: check non-boot cpu missing early features, avoid >>>>>> duplicates between early features and normal >>>>>> features] >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com> >>>>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> >>>>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> >>>>>> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> 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,
Correct.
> 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?
Probably not, as I assume the firmware still gives you the description of a GICv3, so things will grind to a halt at that point.
> We never run different GIC driver on different CPUs, right?
We don't. And please stop giving people horrible ideas! ;-)
Thanks,
M.
> 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, >
-- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
| |