From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Wyes Karny <wyes.karny@amd.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lewis.Carroll@amd.com,
Mario.Limonciello@amd.com, gautham.shenoy@amd.com,
Ananth.Narayan@amd.com, bharata@amd.com, len.brown@intel.com,
x86@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com,
chang.seok.bae@intel.com, keescook@chromium.org, metze@samba.org,
zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com, mark.rutland@arm.com,
rui.zhang@intel.com, puwen@hygon.cn, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com,
andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, jing2.liu@intel.com,
jmattson@google.com, pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] x86: Remove vendor checks from prefer_mwait_c1_over_halt
Date: Wed, 25 May 2022 18:55:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220525165548.GJ2578@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <67ca737f7cdabfc75f930cf59b49d910d8c491d6.1653324016.git-series.wyes.karny@amd.com>
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 10:25:50PM +0530, Wyes Karny wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> index 4e0178b066c5..7bf4d73c9522 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> @@ -813,28 +813,43 @@ static void amd_e400_idle(void)
> }
>
> /*
> - * Intel Core2 and older machines prefer MWAIT over HALT for C1.
> - * We can't rely on cpuidle installing MWAIT, because it will not load
> - * on systems that support only C1 -- so the boot default must be MWAIT.
> + * Prefer MWAIT over HALT if MWAIT is supported, MWAIT_CPUID leaf
> + * exists and whenever MONITOR/MWAIT extensions are present there is at
> + * least one C1 substate.
> *
> - * Some AMD machines are the opposite, they depend on using HALT.
> - *
> - * So for default C1, which is used during boot until cpuidle loads,
> - * use MWAIT-C1 on Intel HW that has it, else use HALT.
> + * Do not prefer MWAIT if MONITOR instruction has a bug or idle=nomwait
> + * is passed to kernel commandline parameter.
> */
> 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;
>
> - 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;
>
> - 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 at least one
> + * MWAIT C1 substate present.
> + */
> + return (edx & MWAIT_C1_SUBSTATE_MASK);
> }
Seems reasonable enough to me,
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-25 16:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-23 16:55 [PATCH v4 0/3] x86: Prefer MWAIT over HLT on AMD processors Wyes Karny
2022-05-23 16:55 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] x86: Handle idle=nomwait cmdline properly for x86_idle Wyes Karny
2022-05-25 8:06 ` Zhang Rui
2022-06-02 15:41 ` Wyes Karny
2022-06-05 12:32 ` Zhang Rui
2022-06-06 9:13 ` Wyes Karny
2022-05-23 16:55 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] x86: Remove vendor checks from prefer_mwait_c1_over_halt Wyes Karny
2022-05-25 16:55 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2022-06-06 12:50 ` Zhang Rui
2022-06-06 15:37 ` Dave Hansen
2022-06-07 1:16 ` Zhang Rui
2022-05-23 16:55 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] x86: Fix comment for X86_FEATURE_ZEN Wyes Karny
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220525165548.GJ2578@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=Ananth.Narayan@amd.com \
--cc=Lewis.Carroll@amd.com \
--cc=Mario.Limonciello@amd.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=bharata@amd.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=chang.seok.bae@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jing2.liu@intel.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=metze@samba.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com \
--cc=puwen@hygon.cn \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=rui.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=wyes.karny@amd.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.