Re: Relax CPU features sanity checking on heterogeneous architectures

[Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>]

Hi Mark,

Thanks a lot for the detailed explanations, I did have a look at all the 
variations before posting this.

On 2019-10-11 16:20, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 11:19:00AM +0530, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>> On latest QCOM SoCs like SM8150 and SC7180 with big.LITTLE arch, below
>> warnings are observed during bootup of big cpu cores.
> 
> For reference, which CPUs are in those SoCs?
> 

SM8150 is based on Cortex-A55(little cores) and Cortex-A76(big cores). 
I'm afraid I cannot give details about SC7180 yet.

>> SM8150:
>> 
>> [    0.271177] CPU features: SANITY CHECK: Unexpected variation in
>> SYS_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1. Boot CPU: 0x00000011112222, CPU4: 
>> 0x00000011111112
> 
> The differing fields are EL3, EL2, and EL1: the boot CPU supports
> AArch64 and AArch32 at those exception levels, while the secondary only
> supports AArch64.
> 
> Do we handle this variation in KVM?

We do not support KVM.

> 
>> [    0.271184] CPU features: SANITY CHECK: Unexpected variation in
>> SYS_ID_ISAR4_EL1. Boot CPU: 0x00000000011142, CPU4: 0x00000000010142
> 
> The differing field is (AArch32) SMC: present on the boot CPU, but
> missing on the secondary CPU.
> 
> This is mandated to be zero when AArch32 isn' implemented at EL1.
> 

So this need not be strict?

>> [    0.271189] CPU features: SANITY CHECK: Unexpected variation in
>> SYS_ID_PFR1_EL1. Boot CPU: 0x00000010011011, CPU4: 0x00000010010000
> 
> The differing fields are (AArch32) Virtualization, Security, and
> ProgMod: all present on the boot CPU, but missing on the secondary
> CPU.
> 
> All mandated to be zero when AArch32 isn' implemented at EL1.
> 

Same here, this need not be strict?

>> SC7180:
>> 
>> [    0.812770] CPU features: SANITY CHECK: Unexpected variation in
>> SYS_CTR_EL0. Boot CPU: 0x00000084448004, CPU6: 0x0000009444c004
> 
> The differing fields are:
> 
> * IDC: present only on the secondary CPU. This is a worrying mismatch
>   because it could mean that required cache maintenance is missed in
>   some cases. Does the secondary CPU definitely broadcast PoU
>   maintenance to the boot CPU that requires it?
> 

I will get some more details from internal cpu team about this one.

> * L1Ip: VIPT on the boot CPU, PIPT on the secondary CPU.
> 
>> [    0.812838] CPU features: SANITY CHECK: Unexpected variation in
>> SYS_ID_AA64MMFR2_EL1. Boot CPU: 0x00000000001011, CPU6: 
>> 0x00000000000011
> 
> The differing field is IESB: presend on the boot CPU, missing on the
> secondary CPU.
> 
>> [    0.812876] CPU features: SANITY CHECK: Unexpected variation in
>> SYS_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1. Boot CPU: 0x00000011112222, CPU6:
> 0x1100000011111112
>> [    0.812924] CPU features: SANITY CHECK: Unexpected variation in
>> SYS_ID_ISAR4_EL1. Boot CPU: 0x00000000011142, CPU6: 0x00000000010142
>> [    0.812950] CPU features: SANITY CHECK: Unexpected variation in
>> SYS_ID_PFR0_EL1. Boot CPU: 0x00000010000131, CPU6: 0x00000010010131
>> [    0.812977] CPU features: SANITY CHECK: Unexpected variation in
>> SYS_ID_PFR1_EL1. Boot CPU: 0x00000010011011, CPU6: 0x00000010010000
> 
> These are the same story as for SM8150.
> 
>> Can we relax some sanity checking for these by making it FTR_NONSTRICT
> or by
>> some other means? I just tried below roughly for SM8150 but I guess 
>> this
> is
>> not correct,
>> maybe for ftr_generic_32bits we should be checking bootcpu and nonboot
> cpu
>> partnum(to identify big.LITTLE) and then make it nonstrict?
>> These are all my wild assumptions, please correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> Before we make any changes, we need to check whether we do actually
> handle this variation in a safe way, and we need to consider what this
> means w.r.t. late CPU hotplug.
> 
> Even if we can handle variation at boot time, once we've determined the
> set of system-wide features we cannot allow those to regress, and I
> believe we'll need new code to enforce that. I don't think it's
> sufficient to mark these as NONSTRICT, though we might do that with
> other changes.
> 
> We shouldn't look at the part number at all here. We care about
> variation across CPUs regardless of whether this is big.LITTLE or some
> variation in tie-offs, etc.
> 

Thanks,
Sai

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a 
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation