lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 04/20] arm64: capabilities: Prepare for fine grained capabilities
From
Date
On 07/02/18 10:37, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 06:27:51PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> We use arm64_cpu_capabilities to represent CPU ELF HWCAPs exposed
>> to the userspace and the CPU hwcaps used by the kernel, which
>> include cpu features and CPU errata work arounds. Capabilities
>> have some properties that decide how they should be treated :
>>
>> 1) Detection, i.e scope : A cap could be "detected" either :
>> - if it is present on at least one CPU (SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU)
>> Or
>> - if it is present on all the CPUs (SCOPE_SYSTEM)
>>
>> 2) When is it enabled ? - A cap is treated as "enabled" when the
>> system takes some action based on whether the capability is detected or
>> not. e.g, setting some control register, patching the kernel code.
>> Right now, we treat all caps are enabled at boot-time, after all
>> the CPUs are brought up by the kernel. But there are certain caps,
>> which are enabled early during the boot (e.g, VHE, GIC_CPUIF for NMI)
>> and kernel starts using them, even before the secondary CPUs are brought
>> up. We would need a way to describe this for each capability.
>>
>> 3) Conflict on a late CPU - When a CPU is brought up, it is checked
>> against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via
>> verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability
>> on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations
>> of conflict.
>>
>> x-----------------------------x
>> | Type | System | Late CPU |
>> ------------------------------|
>> | a | y | n |
>> ------------------------------|
>> | b | n | y |
>> x-----------------------------x
>>
>> Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the
>> system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for
>> all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain
>> filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as
>> long as the system already enables it.
>>
>> Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds which requires some
>> work around, which cannot be delayed. And we ignore (b) for features. Here,
>> yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too
>> late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc).
>>
>> So this calls for a lot more fine grained behavior for each capability.
>> And if we define all the attributes to control their behavior properly,
>> we may be able to use a single table for the CPU hwcaps (which cover
>> errata and features, not the ELF HWCAPs). This is a prepartory step
>> to get there. More bits would be added for the properties listed above.
>>
>> We are going to use a bit-mask to encode all the properties of a capabilities.
>> This patch encodes the "SCOPE" of the capability.
>>
>> As such there is no change in how the capabilities are treated.
>>
>> Cc: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>
> A few minor nits in the documentation, otherwise
>
> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>> arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c | 8 ++--
>> arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 38 ++++++++--------
>> 3 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>> index 7925e40c6ded..05da54f1b4c7 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>> @@ -86,16 +86,89 @@ struct arm64_ftr_reg {
>>
>> extern struct arm64_ftr_reg arm64_ftr_reg_ctrel0;
>>
>> -/* scope of capability check */
>> -enum {
>> - SCOPE_SYSTEM,
>> - SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU,
>> -};
>> +/*
>> + * CPU capabilities:
>> + *
>> + * We use arm64_cpu_capabilities to represent system features, errata work
>> + * arounds (both used internally by kernel and tracked in cpu_hwcaps) and
>> + * ELF HWCAPs (which are exposed to user).
>> + *
>> + * To support systems with heterogeneous CPUs, we need to make sure that we
>> + * detect the capabilities correctly on the system and take appropriate
>> + * measures to ensure there are not incompatibilities.
>> + *
>> + * This comment tries to explain how we treat the capabilities.
>> + * Each capability has the following list of attributes :
>> + *
>> + * 1) Scope of Detection : The system detects a given capability by performing
>> + * some checks at runtime. This could be, e.g, checking the value of a field
>> + * in CPU ID feature register or checking the cpu model. The capability
>> + * provides a call back ( @matches() ) to perform the check.
>> + * Scope defines how the checks should be performed. There are two cases:
>> + *
>> + * a) SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU: check all the CPUs and "detect" if at least one
>> + * matches. This implies, we have to run the check on all the booting
>> + * CPUs, until the system decides that state of the capability is finalised.
>> + * (See section 2 below)
>> + * Or
>> + * b) SCOPE_SYSTEM: check all the CPUs and "detect" if all the CPUs matches.
>> + * This implies, we run the check only once, when the system decides to
>> + * finalise the state of the capability. If the capability relies on a
>> + * field in one of the CPU ID feature registers, we use the sanitised
>> + * value of the register from the CPU feature infrastructure to make
>> + * the decision.
>> + * The process of detection is usually denoted by "update" capability state
>> + * in the code.
>> + *
>> + * 2) Finalise the state : The kernel should finalise the state of a capability
>> + * at some point during its execution and take necessary actions if any. Usually,
>> + * this is done, after all the boot-time enabled CPUs are brought up by the
>> + * kernel, so that it can make better decision based on the available set
>> + * of CPUs. However, there are some special cases, where the action is taken
>> + * during the early boot by the primary boot CPU. (e.g, running the kernel at
>> + * EL2 with Virtualisation Host Extensions). The kernel usually disallows
>> + * any changes to the state of a capability once it finalises the capability
>> + * and takes any action, as it may be impossible to execute the actions safely.
>> + *
>> + * 3) Verification: When a CPU is brought online (e.g, by user or by the kernel),
>> + * the kernel should make sure that it is safe to use the CPU, by verifying
>> + * that the CPU is compliant with the state of the capabilities established
>
> Nit: can we say "finalised" instead of "established"?
>
> There could be doubt about precisely what "established" means.
> "Finalised" is clearly defined in (2) -- I'm assuming that's the
> intended meaning here (?)

You're right. It should be "Finalised".

>
>> + * already. This happens via :
>> + * secondary_start_kernel()-> check_local_cpu_capabilities() ->
>> + * check_early_cpu_features() && verify_local_cpu_capabilities()
>
> Nit: Maybe just say "via secondart_start_kernel()"? Too much detail
> about the exact code flow may become wrong in the future when someone
> refactors the code.

Sure. We could say secondary_start_kernel-> check_local_cpu_capabilities().

>
>> + *
>> + * As explained in (2) above, capabilities could be finalised at different
>> + * points in the execution. Each CPU is verified against the "finalised"
>> + * capabilities and if there is a conflict, the kernel takes an action, based
>> + * on the severity (e.g, a CPU could be prevented from booting or cause a
>> + * kernel panic). The CPU is allowed to "affect" the state of the capability,
>> + * if it has not been finalised already.
>> + *
>> + * 4) Action: As mentioned in (2), the kernel can take an action for each detected
>> + * capability, on all CPUs on the system. This is always initiated only after
>
> Nit: maybe clarify what an action is, e.g.
> "Appropriate actions include patching in alternatives, turning on an
> architectural feature or activating errata workarounds."

See below.

>
> Can we can that it is the job of the cpu_enable() method to perform the
> appropriate action, or is that not universally true?
>

It is not completely true. e.g we don't patch in alternatives from "enable" call back.
They are batched and performed after we have "taken actions" (i.e after
enable_cpu_capabilites() ). But all CPU control specific changes are performed from
cpu_enable().

So we could say:

"Appropriate actions include turning on an architectural feature or changing the CPU
control bits (e.g SCTLR or TCR). Patching in alternatives for the capabilities are
batched and is performed separately"

Cheers
Suzuki


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-07 16:17    [W:0.141 / U:33.304 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site