From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: markivx@codeaurora.org (Vikram Mulukutla)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 12:22:23 -0800
Subject: spin_lock behavior with ARM64 big.Little/HMP
In-Reply-To: <8d9d6333-0ebe-65c4-c6f1-3e3475e3e535@arm.com>
References: <400ab4b8b2354c5b9283f6ed657363a0@codeaurora.org>
 <8d9d6333-0ebe-65c4-c6f1-3e3475e3e535@arm.com>
Message-ID: <f9fc9549d801fece7422d97d5d89df8b@codeaurora.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org


Hi Sudeep,

Thanks for taking a look!

On 2016-11-18 02:30, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> Hi Vikram,
> 
> On 18/11/16 02:22, Vikram Mulukutla wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> This isn't really a bug report, but just a description of a 
>> frequency/IPC
>> dependent behavior that I'm curious if we should worry about. The 
>> behavior
>> is exposed by questionable design so I'm leaning towards don't-care.
>> 
>> Consider these threads running in parallel on two ARM64 CPUs running
>> mainline
>> Linux:
>> 
> 
> Are you seeing this behavior with the mainline kernel on any platforms
> as we have a sort of workaround for this ?
> 

If I understand that workaround correctly, the ARM timer event stream is 
used
to periodically wake up CPUs that are waiting in WFE, is that right? I 
think
my scenario below may be different because LittleCPU doesn't actually 
wait
on a WFE event in the loop that is trying to increment lock->next, i.e. 
it's
stuck in the following loop:

         ARM64_LSE_ATOMIC_INSN(
         /* LL/SC */
"       prfm    pstl1strm, %3\n"
"1:     ldaxr   %w0, %3\n"
"       add     %w1, %w0, %w5\n"
"       stxr    %w2, %w1, %3\n"
"       cbnz    %w2, 1b\n",


I have been testing internal platforms; I'll try to test on something
available publicly that's b.L. In any case, the timer event stream was 
enabled
when I tried this out.

>> (Ordering of lines between the two columns does not indicate a 
>> sequence of
>> execution. Assume flag=0 initially.)
>> 
>> LittleARM64_CPU @ 300MHz (e.g.A53)   |  BigARM64_CPU @ 1.5GHz (e.g. 
>> A57)
>> -------------------------------------+----------------------------------
>> spin_lock_irqsave(s)                 |  local_irq_save()
>> /* critical section */
>> flag = 1                             |  spin_lock(s)
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(s)            |  while (!flag) {
>>                                      |      spin_unlock(s)
>>                                      |      cpu_relax();
>>                                      |      spin_lock(s)
>>                                      |  }
>>                                      |  spin_unlock(s)
>>                                      |  local_irq_restore()
>> 

[...]

Thanks,
Vikram