From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
Mario Limonciello <Mario.Limonciello@amd.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
<linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: processor idle: Practically limit "Dummy wait" workaround to old Intel systems
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 20:53:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <78d13a19-2806-c8af-573e-7f2625edfab8@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220922184745.3252932-1-dave.hansen@intel.com>
On 9/22/2022 8:47 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> Old, circa 2002 chipsets have a bug: they don't go idle when they are
> supposed to. So, a workaround was added to slow the CPU down and
> ensure that the CPU waits a bit for the chipset to actually go idle.
> This workaround is ancient and has been in place in some form since
> the original kernel ACPI implementation.
>
> But, this workaround is very painful on modern systems. The "inl()"
> can take thousands of cycles (see Link: for some more detailed
> numbers and some fun kernel archaeology).
>
> First and foremost, modern systems should not be using this code.
> Typical Intel systems have not used it in over a decade because it is
> horribly inferior to MWAIT-based idle.
>
> Despite this, people do seem to be tripping over this workaround on
> AMD system today.
>
> Limit the "dummy wait" workaround to Intel systems. Keep Modern AMD
> systems from tripping over the workaround. Remotely modern Intel
> systems use intel_idle instead of this code and will, in practice,
> remain unaffected by the dummy wait.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
> Cc: Mario Limonciello <Mario.Limonciello@amd.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
> Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> Reported-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220921063638.2489-1-kprateek.nayak@amd.com/
Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
or do you want me to pick this up?
> ---
> drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> index 16a1663d02d4..9f40917c49ef 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> @@ -531,10 +531,27 @@ static void wait_for_freeze(void)
> /* No delay is needed if we are in guest */
> if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
> return;
> + /*
> + * Modern (>=Nehalem) Intel systems use ACPI via intel_idle,
> + * not this code. Assume that any Intel systems using this
> + * are ancient and may need the dummy wait. This also assumes
> + * that the motivating chipset issue was Intel-only.
> + */
> + if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
> + return;
> #endif
> - /* Dummy wait op - must do something useless after P_LVL2 read
> - because chipsets cannot guarantee that STPCLK# signal
> - gets asserted in time to freeze execution properly. */
> + /*
> + * Dummy wait op - must do something useless after P_LVL2 read
> + * because chipsets cannot guarantee that STPCLK# signal gets
> + * asserted in time to freeze execution properly
> + *
> + * This workaround has been in place since the original ACPI
> + * implementation was merged, circa 2002.
> + *
> + * If a profile is pointing to this instruction, please first
> + * consider moving your system to a more modern idle
> + * mechanism.
> + */
> inl(acpi_gbl_FADT.xpm_timer_block.address);
> }
>
next parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-22 18:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20220922184745.3252932-1-dave.hansen@intel.com>
2022-09-22 18:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2022-09-22 18:57 ` [PATCH] ACPI: processor idle: Practically limit "Dummy wait" workaround to old Intel systems Limonciello, Mario
2022-09-22 19:01 ` Dave Hansen
2022-09-23 18:36 ` Kim Phillips
2022-09-26 21:49 ` Dave Hansen
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=78d13a19-2806-c8af-573e-7f2625edfab8@intel.com \
--to=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=Mario.Limonciello@amd.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox