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
next prev parent 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).