From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:30:43 +0100 Subject: [PATCHv2] ARM64: Add AT_ARM64_MIDR to the aux vector In-Reply-To: <4C8DD5E0-E1EA-40C6-B947-72189241023C@caviumnetworks.com> References: <1440873982-44062-1-git-send-email-apinski@cavium.com> <20150901163304.GC16430@leverpostej> <4C8DD5E0-E1EA-40C6-B947-72189241023C@caviumnetworks.com> Message-ID: <20150901173043.GE16430@leverpostej> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org [...] > >>> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 07:46:22PM +0100, Andrew Pinski wrote: > >>> It is useful to pass down MIDR register down to userland if all of > >>> the online cores are all the same type. This adds AT_ARM64_MIDR > >>> aux vector type and passes down the midr system register. > >>> > >>> This is alternative to MIDR_EL1 part of > >>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-July/358995.html. > >>> It allows for faster access to midr_el1 than going through a trap and > >>> does not exist if the set of cores are not the same. > >> > >> I'm not sure I follow the rationale. If speed is important the > >> application can cache the value the first time it reads it with a trap. > > > > It is also about compatibility also. Exposing the register is not backwards compatible but using the aux vector is. > > That would also break big.little too. So either break it with hot plug or break it in userland, your choice. The value wouldn't be representative of the system as a whole; that is true. However, we never guaranteed that it was, while the aux vector code implied that we did. For optimisation that may be good enough; code optimized for a different uArch should still function on another, even if it is slower. > >> This also means that the behaviour is different across homogeneous and > >> heterogeneous systems. > > That should be ok because it is still backwards compatible with what > was done before. My goal here is just to allow quick easy access to > midr in the case of a homogeneous system which I care about, thunderx > and to allow glibc to select a memcpy/memset that is better for > thunderx. As I mentioned in the other thread, I think that HWCAP_CPUID is sufficient to enable forwards and backwards compatibility. If it is present then you can use the current CPU's MIDR to select a better memcpy/memset if required. Thanks, Mark.