lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 21/22] arm64: Delay enabling hardware DBM feature
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 05:39:09PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 09/02/18 18:58, Dave Martin wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 05:55:12PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> >>We enable hardware DBM bit in a capable CPU, very early in the
> >>boot via __cpu_setup. This doesn't give us a flexibility of
> >>optionally disable the feature, as the clearing the bit
> >>is a bit costly as the TLB can cache the settings. Instead,
> >>we delay enabling the feature until the CPU is brought up
> >>into the kernel. We use the feature capability mechanism
> >>to handle it.
> >>
> >>The hardware DBM is a non-conflicting feature. i.e, the kernel
> >>can safely run with a mix of CPUs with some using the feature
> >>and the others don't. So, it is safe for a late CPU to have
> >>this capability and enable it, even if the active CPUs don't.
> >>
> >>To get this handled properly by the infrastructure, we
> >>unconditionally set the capability and only enable it
> >>on CPUs which really have the feature. Also, we print the
> >>feature detection from the "matches" call back to make sure
> >>we don't mislead the user when none of the CPUs could use the
> >>feature.
> >>
> >>Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> >>Cc: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
> >>Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
> >>---
> >>Changes since V2
> >> - Print the feature detection message only when at least one CPU
> >> is actually using it.
>
>
> >>+static bool has_hw_dbm(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *cap,
> >>+ int __unused)
> >>+{
> >>+ static bool detected = false;
> >>+ /*
> >>+ * DBM is a non-conflicting feature. i.e, the kernel can safely
> >>+ * run a mix of CPUs with and without the feature. So, we
> >>+ * unconditionally enable the capability to allow any late CPU
> >>+ * to use the feature. We only enable the control bits on the
> >>+ * CPU, if it actually supports.
> >>+ *
> >>+ * We have to make sure we print the "feature" detection only
> >>+ * when at least one CPU actually uses it. So check if this CPU
> >>+ * can actually use it and print the message exactly once.
> >>+ *
> >>+ * This is safe as all CPUs (including secondary CPUs - due to the
> >>+ * LOCAL_CPU scope - and the hotplugged CPUs - via verification)
> >>+ * goes through the "matches" check exactly once. Also if a CPU
> >>+ * matches the criteria, it is guaranteed that the CPU will turn
> >>+ * the DBM on, as the capability is unconditionally enabled.
> >>+ */
> >>+ if (!detected && cpu_can_use_dbm(cap)) {
> >>+ detected = true;
> >>+ pr_info("detected feature: Hardware dirty bit management\n");
> >>+ }
> >
> >Can we just do
> >
> > if (cpu_can_use_dbm(cap))
> > pr_info_once(...);
> >
> >Then we can get rid of "detected".
>
> The reason for open coding is the cost of cpu_can_use_dbm() with
> addition of black listed CPUs in the next patch in the series.

Oh, I see. Yes, that makes sense.

There's obvious raciness here, but I guess pr_info_once() doesn't defend
against that either. In practice, we don't race booting of two CPUs
against each other IIUC.

If you really like you could make detected __read_mostly like
printk_once() does, but that's no big deal if this is not on a hot path
(and probably not even then).

Cheers
---Dave

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-08 14:54    [W:0.076 / U:0.600 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site