From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:30:34 +0100
Subject: [PATCHv4 5/5] arm64: cpuinfo: print info for all CPUs
In-Reply-To: <20140716155747.GR29414@arm.com>
References: <1405524767-30220-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com>
 <1405524767-30220-6-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com>
 <20140716155747.GR29414@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20140717103034.GD18203@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

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