lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [May]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/3] x86: Remove vendor checks from prefer_mwait_c1_over_halt
From
Date
On Fri, 2022-05-20 at 21:43 +0800, Zhang Rui wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-05-19 at 09:00 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 5/10/22 03:18, Wyes Karny wrote:
> > > static int prefer_mwait_c1_over_halt(const struct cpuinfo_x86
> > > *c)
> > > {
> > > + u32 eax, ebx, ecx, edx;
> > > +
> > > /* User has disallowed the use of MWAIT. Fallback to HALT */
> > > if (boot_option_idle_override == IDLE_NOMWAIT)
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > - if (c->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
> > > + /* MWAIT is not supported on this platform. Fallback to HALT */
> > > + if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MWAIT))
> > > return 0;
>
> I'm new to x86 code, a dumb question, what about the other vendors?
> with this patch, prefer_mwait_c1_over_halt() can return 1 for other
> vendors as well?
>
> > >
> > > - if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MWAIT) ||
> > > boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_MONITOR))
> > > + /* Monitor has a bug. Fallback to HALT */
> > > + if (boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_MONITOR))
> > > return 0;
> >
> > So, before, we pretty much just assume that all Intel CPUs with
> > MWAIT
> > should use MWAIT C1.
> >
> > > - return 1;
> > > + cpuid(CPUID_MWAIT_LEAF, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * If MWAIT extensions are not available, it is safe to use
> > > MWAIT
> > > + * with EAX=0, ECX=0.
> > > + */
> > > + if (!(ecx & CPUID5_ECX_EXTENSIONS_SUPPORTED))
> > > + return 1;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * If MWAIT extensions are available, there should be least one
> > > + * MWAIT C1 substate present.
> > > + */
> > > + return (edx & MWAIT_C1_SUBSTATE_MASK);
> > > }
> >
> > So, I guess the "If MWAIT extensions are not available" check is
> > consistent with the "always use it on Intel" behavior.
> >
> > But, this would change the behavior on Intel systems that both have
> > CPUID5_ECX_EXTENSIONS_SUPPORTED and do not set bits in
> > MWAIT_C1_SUBSTATE_MASK.
> >
> > Is that a problem or an improvement?
>
> At least Intel processors since Nehalem have MWAIT C1 support.
> For elder ones, need to confirm with Len.
>
> When no bits set in MWAIT_C1_SUBSTATE_MASK, it means MWAIT C1 is not
> available for some reason, let me check if I can make this happen or
> not in real life.

I tried an Icelake server and a whiskeylake client, the supported
cstates in CPUID(5) edx doesn't change when a specific cstate or all
cstates are enabled/disabled in BIOS.

So there are always bits set in MWAIT_C1_SUBSTATE_MASK, and this patch
doesn't make any change to these Intel processors that have MWAIT C1
support.

thanks,
rui


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-05-20 17:47    [W:0.126 / U:1.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site