From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com>,
Qais Yousef <Qais.Yousef@arm.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
"kernel-team@android.com" <kernel-team@android.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] arm64: Allow mismatched 32-bit EL0 support
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2020 14:30:21 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201106143020.GG29329@gaia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201105213846.GA8600@willie-the-truck>
On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 09:38:46PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> Ok. Then we're in agreement about not preventing late-onlining. The problem
> then is that the existing 32-bit EL0 capability is a SYSTEM cap so even with
> your diff, we still have an issue if you boot on the CPUs that support
> 32-bit and then try to online a 64-bit-only core (it will fail).
Ah, I focussed too much on the 32-bit capable CPUs coming up late. In my
original hack, I made the capability weak based on the config option.
Here we want to make it weak based on cmdline but that structure is
const (we could remove the const though).
> So I think we do need my changes to the existing cap, but perhaps we
> could return false from system_supports_32bit_el0() until we've actually
> seen a 32-bit capable core. That way you would keep the existing behaviour
> on TX2, and we wouldn't get any unusual late-onlining failures.
If we see the first 32-bit capable core late, we may report it's
available but no proper hwcaps.
We could do a combination of a new weak feature together with your
always-on 32-bit feature when forced by the cmdline. So the system would
support 32-bit if both the system feature (with the detection override)
and the asym one are set.
However, I think it may be simpler if we made the current feature weak
(so no new one) together with a bool somewhere that tells us if we found
a CPU that doesn't have 32-bit (asym mode). system_supports_32bit_el0()
would check if the cap is set together with (!asym_found ||
asym_allowed).
--
Catalin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-06 14:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-27 21:51 [PATCH 0/6] An alternative series for asymmetric AArch32 systems Will Deacon
2020-10-27 21:51 ` [PATCH 1/6] KVM: arm64: Handle Asymmetric " Will Deacon
2020-10-27 21:51 ` [PATCH 2/6] arm64: Allow mismatched 32-bit EL0 support Will Deacon
2020-10-28 11:12 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-28 11:17 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-28 11:22 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-28 11:23 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-28 11:49 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-28 12:40 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-28 18:56 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-29 22:20 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-30 11:18 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-30 16:13 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-02 11:44 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-11-05 21:38 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-06 12:54 ` Qais Yousef
2020-11-06 13:00 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-06 14:48 ` Qais Yousef
2020-11-09 13:52 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-11 16:27 ` Qais Yousef
2020-11-12 10:24 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-12 11:55 ` Qais Yousef
2020-11-12 16:49 ` Qais Yousef
2020-11-12 17:06 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-11-12 17:36 ` Qais Yousef
2020-11-12 17:44 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-12 17:36 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-13 10:45 ` Qais Yousef
2020-11-06 14:30 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2020-10-28 11:18 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-28 11:21 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-27 21:51 ` [PATCH 3/6] KVM: arm64: Kill 32-bit vCPUs on systems with mismatched " Will Deacon
2020-10-27 21:51 ` [PATCH 4/6] arm64: Kill 32-bit applications scheduled on 64-bit-only CPUs Will Deacon
2020-10-28 12:10 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-28 12:36 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-27 21:51 ` [PATCH 5/6] arm64: Advertise CPUs capable of running 32-bit applcations in sysfs Will Deacon
2020-10-28 8:37 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-10-28 9:51 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-28 12:15 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-28 12:27 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-28 15:14 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-10-28 15:35 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-27 21:51 ` [PATCH 6/6] arm64: Hook up cmdline parameter to allow mismatched 32-bit EL0 Will Deacon
2020-10-29 18:42 ` [PATCH 0/6] An alternative series for asymmetric AArch32 systems Suren Baghdasaryan
2020-10-29 22:17 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-30 16:16 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-10-30 16:24 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-30 17:04 ` Marc Zyngier
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=20201106143020.GG29329@gaia \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=Qais.Yousef@arm.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=will@kernel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).