From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E86C64E7B for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 22:15:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8A152086A for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 22:15:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="FtTn/tgu"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ysNGN25f" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C8A152086A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=T5B8wRQzXg42IqYf7ez41kbecahnPdS+alIkENgwQsA=; b=FtTn/tgudBZMyT65809Z63zCD U5sFoYkcjYQg1sSoCEni3LgS4zQw1JL0OZlfWKg/1wtNh29yUwGuwMCWS7hhoKIK29BzQdIikLRJe yX8TcMFWSJRsLiQ8n5E9nwNNQ8mptrWgZazVCQemnQl63oeDw/WnjrdtUVJ2dUsgstC+fYBIJL9eo pJ+NzJTKeHWnQJpKeU4y6K8mNh8/lpS022nshN5uryLn3bWMjLBiQJh7AbHGvPl+++yb0xL6x8f64 zRbnroQgO4QW3LGT1sD1rTsIlTNHiBrcaLjN1HtJ6RRos6IH5KsLkIHm7+KlvdMV3T2dzmvqwCYT4 rAJUPTvyA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kkDu6-0003ii-Fu; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 22:13:46 +0000 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kkDu3-0003hl-Jq for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 22:13:44 +0000 Received: from willie-the-truck (236.31.169.217.in-addr.arpa [217.169.31.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4E5A62086A; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 22:13:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1606860822; bh=2xrbD8thbVCarGRICSLuZaB24MH3Ul7Cg9RvDfmf4DQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ysNGN25fQy/Ymm81YC3LmG0tJLl94UuV+x7K88K0I/f1KofY7JsGSat3gd5CZzLt/ 11Jvka4WqJtUVgZoQ68UMhDZ263WDFdr564TKAxIcPZIl1y1RTtIyDpk4LwXDoO3t2 rOf1JfijKBe7aJN5gRwhmBM/lrQ1Nuc/TJp7mUg0= Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 22:13:36 +0000 From: Will Deacon To: Qais Yousef Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/14] arm64: Prevent offlining first CPU with 32-bit EL0 on mismatched system Message-ID: <20201201221335.GA28496@willie-the-truck> References: <20201124155039.13804-1-will@kernel.org> <20201124155039.13804-13-will@kernel.org> <20201127134122.oughqeizhl2j4iky@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201127134122.oughqeizhl2j4iky@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20201201_171343_913113_39EF2836 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 37.52 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Marc Zyngier , kernel-team@android.com, Vincent Guittot , Juri Lelli , Quentin Perret , Peter Zijlstra , Catalin Marinas , Johannes Weiner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Li Zefan , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Tejun Heo , Suren Baghdasaryan , Morten Rasmussen , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 01:41:22PM +0000, Qais Yousef wrote: > On 11/24/20 15:50, Will Deacon wrote: > > If we want to support 32-bit applications, then when we identify a CPU > > with mismatched 32-bit EL0 support we must ensure that we will always > > have an active 32-bit CPU available to us from then on. This is important > > for the scheduler, because is_cpu_allowed() will be constrained to 32-bit > > CPUs for compat tasks and forced migration due to a hotplug event will > > hang if no 32-bit CPUs are available. > > > > On detecting a mismatch, prevent offlining of either the mismatching CPU > > if it is 32-bit capable, or find the first active 32-bit capable CPU > > otherwise. > ^^^^^ > > You use cpumask_any_and(). Better use cpumask_first_and()? We have a truly > random function now, cpumask_any_and_distribute(), if you'd like to pick > something 'truly' random. I think cpumask_any_and() is better, because it makes it clear that I don't care about which CPU is chosen (and under the hood it ends up calling cpumask_first_and() _anyway_). So this is purely cosmetic. > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c > > index 29017cbb6c8e..fe470683b43e 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c > > @@ -1237,6 +1237,8 @@ has_cpuid_feature(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int scope) > > > > static int enable_mismatched_32bit_el0(unsigned int cpu) > > { > > + static int lucky_winner = -1; > > + > > struct cpuinfo_arm64 *info = &per_cpu(cpu_data, cpu); > > bool cpu_32bit = id_aa64pfr0_32bit_el0(info->reg_id_aa64pfr0); > > > > @@ -1245,6 +1247,22 @@ static int enable_mismatched_32bit_el0(unsigned int cpu) > > static_branch_enable_cpuslocked(&arm64_mismatched_32bit_el0); > > } > > > > + if (cpumask_test_cpu(0, cpu_32bit_el0_mask) == cpu_32bit) > > + return 0; > > Hmm I'm struggling to get what you're doing here. You're treating CPU0 (the > boot CPU) specially here, but I don't get why? If our ability to execute 32-bit code is the same as the boot CPU then we don't have to do anything. That way, we can postpone nominating the lucky winner until we really need to. > > + if (lucky_winner >= 0) > > + return 0; > > + > > + /* > > + * We've detected a mismatch. We need to keep one of our CPUs with > > + * 32-bit EL0 online so that is_cpu_allowed() doesn't end up rejecting > > + * every CPU in the system for a 32-bit task. > > + */ > > + lucky_winner = cpu_32bit ? cpu : cpumask_any_and(cpu_32bit_el0_mask, > > + cpu_active_mask); > > cpumask_any_and() could return an error. It could be hard or even impossible to > trigger, but better check if lucky_winner is not >= nr_cpu_ids before calling > get_cpu_device(lucky_winner) to stay in the safe side and avoid a potential > splat? I don't see how it can return an error here. There are two cases to consider: 1. The CPU being brought online is the first 32-bit-capable CPU. In which case, we don't use cpumask_any_and() at all. 2. The CPU being brought online is the first 64-bit-only CPU. In which case, the CPU doing the onlining is 32-bit capable and will be in the active mask. > We can do better by the way and do smarter check in remove_cpu() to block > offlining the last aarch32 capable CPU without 'hardcoding' a specific cpu. But > won't insist and happy to wait for someone to come complaining this is not good > enough first. I couldn't find a satisfactory way to do this without the possibility of subtle races, so I'd prefer to keep it simple for the moment. In particular, I wanted to make sure that somebody iterating over the cpu_possible_mask and calling is_cpu_allowed(p, cpu) for each CPU and a 32-bit task can not reach the end of the mask without ever getting a value of 'true'. I'm open to revisiting this once some of this is merged, but right now I don't think it's needed and it certainly adds complexity. > Some vendors play games with hotplug to help with saving power. They might want > to dynamically nominate the last man standing 32bit capable CPU. Again, we can > wait for someone to complain first I guess. The reality is that either all "big" cores or all "little" cores will be the ones that are 32-bit capable, so I doubt it matters an awful lot which one of the cluster is left online from a PM perspective. The real problem is that a core has to be left online at all, but I don't think we can avoid that. Will _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel