linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCHv4 5/5] arm64: cpuinfo: print info for all CPUs
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:30:34 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140717103034.GD18203@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140716155747.GR29414@arm.com>

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 04:57:47PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 04:32:47PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > The features are printed per-cpu to match the format used by other
> > architectures, and are derived from the (globally uniform) hwcaps. In
> > cases where this may report incorrect information, rework is required
> > elsewhere to function with varying instruction set support, and the
> > sanity checks should provide us with some advance notice (warnings and
> > TAINT_CPU_OUT_OF_SPEC). If we're lucky, such systems will never exist.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > -	for_each_online_cpu(i) {
> >  		/*
> >  		 * glibc reads /proc/cpuinfo to determine the number of
> >  		 * online processors, looking for lines beginning with
> >  		 * "processor".  Give glibc what it expects.
> >  		 */
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > -		seq_printf(m, "processor\t: %d\n", i);
> > +		seq_printf(m, "processor\t: %d\n", c);
> >  #endif
> > +		seq_printf(m, "implementer\t: 0x%02x\n",
> > +			   MIDR_IMPLEMENTOR(midr));
> > +		seq_printf(m, "variant\t\t: 0x%x\n", MIDR_VARIANT(midr));
> > +		seq_printf(m, "partnum\t\t: 0x%03x\n", MIDR_PARTNUM(midr));
> > +		seq_printf(m, "revision\t: 0x%x\n", MIDR_REVISION(midr));
> > +
> > +		/* dump out the processor features */
> > +		seq_puts(m, "features\t: ");
> > +		for (i = 0; hwcap_str[i]; i++)
> > +			if (elf_hwcap & (1 << i))
> > +				seq_printf(m, "%s ", hwcap_str[i]);
> 
> I don't have hugely strong opinions about this, but I don't see why it's
> useful to print exactly the same line out `n' times; once for each CPU. We
> only pass one set of hwcaps to ELF executables via auxv, so why do we need
> to duplicate things here?
> 
> Put another way, we're really treating the hwcaps as a system property
> rather than a per-cpu property, so I think we should handle them as such.

I agree. An argument would be that we expose per-cpu hwcap in
/proc/cpuinfo so that whoever (human) looks at this can get an idea of
what features are missing on some CPUs. The elf_hwcap exported to user
via envp should only contain the common subset.

But my worry is that code will start reading /proc/cpuinfo and make the
wrong assumptions on heterogeneous systems, so I agree with Will's
proposal of only printing the (common) CPU features once as a system
property made available by the kernel.

-- 
Catalin

  reply	other threads:[~2014-07-17 10:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-07-16 15:32 [PATCHv4 0/5] arm64: handle heterogeneous system register values Mark Rutland
2014-07-16 15:32 ` [PATCHv4 1/5] arm64: add MIDR_EL1 field accessors Mark Rutland
2014-07-16 15:32 ` [PATCHv4 2/5] arm64: cpuinfo: record cpu system register values Mark Rutland
2014-07-16 15:32 ` [PATCHv4 3/5] arm64: cachetype: report weakest cache policy Mark Rutland
2014-07-16 15:32 ` [PATCHv4 4/5] arm64: add runtime system sanity checks Mark Rutland
2014-07-16 15:32 ` [PATCHv4 5/5] arm64: cpuinfo: print info for all CPUs Mark Rutland
2014-07-16 15:57   ` Will Deacon
2014-07-17 10:30     ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2014-07-17 10:39     ` Peter Maydell
2014-07-17 10:46       ` Marcus Shawcroft
2014-07-17 10:54         ` Will Deacon
2014-07-17 11:09           ` Ard Biesheuvel
2014-07-17 11:12           ` Peter Maydell
2014-07-17 12:35             ` Will Deacon
2014-07-17 13:55               ` Peter Maydell
2014-07-17 17:10                 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-07-17 17:28                   ` Will Deacon
2014-07-18  9:27                     ` Catalin Marinas
2014-07-18  9:53                       ` Will Deacon
2014-07-18 13:57                         ` Mark Rutland
2014-07-18 15:52                           ` Peter Maydell
2014-07-18 15:58                             ` Mark Rutland
2014-07-18 16:18                               ` Peter Maydell
2014-07-18 16:41                                 ` Mark Rutland
2014-07-18 20:24                                   ` Christopher Covington
2014-07-16 15:55 ` [PATCHv4 0/5] arm64: handle heterogeneous system register values Will Deacon
2014-07-17 11:03 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-07-17 14:21   ` Mark Rutland
2014-07-17 14:28     ` Will Deacon

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=20140717103034.GD18203@arm.com \
    --to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).