From: Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com (Suzuki K Poulose)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 14/22] arm64: capabilities: Add support for features enabled early
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 17:42:27 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <986f7445-8f67-96e9-21f7-6eb1ff5a23c1@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180212171712.GK5862@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
On 12/02/18 17:17, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 05:54:57PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> The kernel detects and uses some of the features based on the boot
>> CPU and expects that all the following CPUs conform to it. e.g,
>> with VHE and the boot CPU running at EL2, the kernel decides to
>> keep the kernel running at EL2. If another CPU is brought up without
>> this capability, we use custom hooks (via check_early_cpu_features())
>> to handle it. To handle such capabilities add support for detecting
>> and enabling capabilities based on the boot CPU.
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>> index 383c69c95f23..5f56a8342065 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>> @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ extern struct arm64_ftr_reg arm64_ftr_reg_ctrel0;
>> * some checks at runtime. This could be, e.g, checking the value of a field
>> * in CPU ID feature register or checking the cpu model. The capability
>> * provides a call back ( @matches() ) to perform the check.
>> - * Scope defines how the checks should be performed. There are two cases:
>> + * Scope defines how the checks should be performed. There are three cases:
>> *
>> * a) SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU: check all the CPUs and "detect" if at least one
>> * matches. This implies, we have to run the check on all the booting
>> @@ -117,6 +117,11 @@ extern struct arm64_ftr_reg arm64_ftr_reg_ctrel0;
>> * field in one of the CPU ID feature registers, we use the sanitised
>> * value of the register from the CPU feature infrastructure to make
>> * the decision.
>> + * Or
>> + * c) SCOPE_BOOT_CPU: Check only on the primary boot CPU to detect the feature.
>> + * This category is for features that are "finalised" (or used) by the kernel
>> + * very early even before the SMP cpus are brought up.
>> + *
>
> Nit: the overlong lines bring no benefit here. Please wrap them if
> possible -- but to avoid patch churn only bother for lines actually
> changed/added by this patch.
Sure
>> static void update_cpu_ftr_reg(struct arm64_ftr_reg *reg, u64 new)
>> @@ -1277,12 +1277,21 @@ __enable_cpu_capabilities(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps, u16 scope_m
>>
>> if (caps->cpu_enable) {
>> /*
>> - * Use stop_machine() as it schedules the work allowing
>> - * us to modify PSTATE, instead of on_each_cpu() which
>> - * uses an IPI, giving us a PSTATE that disappears when
>> - * we return.
>> + * If we are dealing with a boot CPU capability, we
>> + * have to enable this only on the Boot CPU, where it
>> + * is detected. All the secondaries enable it via
>> + * check_local_cpu_capabilities().
>
> I found this confusing to read, because it's not 100% clear whether the
> "If we are dealing with a boot CPU capability" applies to the second
> sentence as well.
>
> Maybe this would be clearer as:
>
> "Capabilities with SCOPE_BOOT_CPU are finalised before any secondary
> CPU boots. Thus, each secondary will enable the capability as
> appropriate via check_local_cpu_capabilities(). The only exception is
> the boot CPU, for which the capability must be enabled here. This
> approach avoids costly stop_machine() calls for this case."
>
> Thoughts?
Definitely better, will change it.
>> @@ -1362,6 +1371,12 @@ static void check_early_cpu_features(void)
>> {
>> verify_cpu_run_el();
>> verify_cpu_asid_bits();
>> + /*
>> + * Early features are used by the kernel already. If there
>> + * is a conflict, we cannot proceed further.
>> + */
>> + if (!verify_local_cpu_caps(SCOPE_BOOT_CPU))
>> + cpu_panic_kernel();
>> }
>>
>> static void
>> @@ -1403,9 +1418,8 @@ static void verify_sve_features(void)
>> */
>> static void verify_local_cpu_capabilities(void)
>> {
>
> Nit: Maybe add a comment saying where SCOPE_BOOT_CPU capabilities are
> checked.
Ok
>
>> - if (!verify_local_cpu_caps(SCOPE_ALL))
>> + if (!verify_local_cpu_caps(SCOPE_ALL & ~SCOPE_BOOT_CPU))
>> cpu_die_early();
>> -
>
> Nit: keep blank line?
>
> Otherwise it looks like the if() falls through, where really
> cpu_die_early() does not return.
>
ok
>> void __init setup_cpu_features(void)
>> --
>> 2.14.3
>
> With fair consideration given to the nits above:
>
> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Cheers
Suzuki
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-07 17:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-09 17:54 [PATCH v3 00/21] arm64: Rework cpu capabilities handling Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 01/21] arm64: capabilities: Move errata work around check on boot CPU Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 01/22] arm64: capabilities: Update prototype for enable call back Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 02/21] arm64: capabilities: Move errata processing code Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 02/22] arm64: capabilities: Move errata work around check on boot CPU Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 03/22] arm64: capabilities: Move errata processing code Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 03/21] arm64: capabilities: Prepare for fine grained capabilities Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 04/21] arm64: capabilities: Add flags to handle the conflicts on late CPU Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 04/22] arm64: capabilities: Prepare for fine grained capabilities Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 05/22] arm64: capabilities: Add flags to handle the conflicts on late CPU Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 05/21] arm64: capabilities: Unify the verification Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 06/21] arm64: capabilities: Filter the entries based on a given mask Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 06/22] arm64: capabilities: Unify the verification Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 07/22] arm64: capabilities: Filter the entries based on a given mask Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 07/21] arm64: capabilities: Prepare for grouping features and errata work arounds Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 08/22] " Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 18:11 ` Dave Martin
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 08/21] arm64: capabilities: Split the processing of " Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 09/21] arm64: capabilities: Allow features based on local CPU scope Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 09/22] arm64: capabilities: Split the processing of errata work arounds Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 18:18 ` Dave Martin
2018-03-08 12:24 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 10/22] arm64: capabilities: Allow features based on local CPU scope Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 18:22 ` Dave Martin
2018-03-08 12:14 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 10/21] arm64: capabilities: Group handling of features and errata workarounds Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 11/22] " Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 18:25 ` Dave Martin
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 11/21] arm64: capabilities: Introduce weak features based on local CPU Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 12/22] " Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 12/21] arm64: capabilities: Restrict KPTI detection to boot-time CPUs Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 13/21] arm64: capabilities: Add support for features enabled early Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 13/22] arm64: capabilities: Restrict KPTI detection to boot-time CPUs Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 14/22] arm64: capabilities: Add support for features enabled early Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-12 17:17 ` Dave Martin
2018-03-07 17:42 ` Suzuki K Poulose [this message]
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 14/21] arm64: capabilities: Change scope of VHE to Boot CPU feature Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:54 ` [PATCH v3 15/22] " Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-12 17:17 ` Dave Martin
2018-03-08 12:10 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-08 13:43 ` Dave Martin
2018-02-09 17:55 ` [PATCH v3 15/21] arm64: capabilities: Clean up midr range helpers Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:55 ` [PATCH v3 16/21] arm64: Add helpers for checking CPU MIDR against a range Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:55 ` [PATCH v3 16/22] arm64: capabilities: Clean up midr range helpers Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:55 ` [PATCH v3 17/22] arm64: Add helpers for checking CPU MIDR against a range Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:55 ` [PATCH v3 17/21] arm64: capabilities: Add support for checks based on a list of MIDRs Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:55 ` [PATCH v3 18/22] " Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:55 ` [PATCH v3 18/21] arm64: capabilities: Handle shared entries Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:55 ` [PATCH v3 19/21] arm64: Add MIDR encoding for Arm Cortex-A55 and Cortex-A35 Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:55 ` [PATCH v3 19/22] arm64: capabilities: Handle shared entries Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-12 17:17 ` Dave Martin
2018-03-08 12:16 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:55 ` [PATCH v3 20/22] arm64: Add MIDR encoding for Arm Cortex-A55 and Cortex-A35 Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:55 ` [PATCH v3 20/21] arm64: Delay enabling hardware DBM feature Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:55 ` [PATCH v3 21/21] arm64: Add work around for Arm Cortex-A55 Erratum 1024718 Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 17:55 ` [PATCH v3 21/22] arm64: Delay enabling hardware DBM feature Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 18:58 ` Dave Martin
2018-03-07 17:39 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-03-08 13:53 ` Dave Martin
2018-03-08 13:55 ` Mark Rutland
2018-02-09 17:55 ` [PATCH v3 22/22] arm64: Add work around for Arm Cortex-A55 Erratum 1024718 Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 18:04 ` [PATCH v3 00/21] arm64: Rework cpu capabilities handling Suzuki K Poulose
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=986f7445-8f67-96e9-21f7-6eb1ff5a23c1@arm.com \
--to=suzuki.poulose@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).