From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from esa12.hc1455-7.c3s2.iphmx.com (esa12.hc1455-7.c3s2.iphmx.com [139.138.37.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0FDB3839BD; Tue, 6 Oct 2026 09:08:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=139.138.37.100 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791277718; cv=none; b=PcAMNSFK7oWSVAAaTSTfXFHbvElvhCbdy7Mw/Rjr2lexlzXCS+kOBHN0U3arC5nE5TgodifJAM21ouNH8CwwvrsrjCDLafOkBeg6me6lAc54C2rM/1/rzyj6xvl3RQqCx9F8kSETnYVaEiwILa0AzNkkB1GORU+4IVcge5r4sBs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791277718; c=relaxed/simple; bh=F4/2ziFaQ+14aJz8mQUHdsabipvtJe9Jxq46ZQmJerg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=qUOZYCkwBsVuGcS8l+ykHtITxXNJyMwG5nSWsPThJewqy8JyFEmIy48VJDYPiLh9Jyc/05rsTm2XCTrwFEebkCkMvn52tpjIzkeyZB4BqYyZqP60hn15fnFG77UryzzKLlX3yYwV+czRXnmeUzcE4QEdDadj6+ssFsFpa7x/750= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=fujitsu.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fujitsu.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fujitsu.com header.i=@fujitsu.com header.b=grF1s9SQ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=139.138.37.100 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=fujitsu.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fujitsu.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fujitsu.com header.i=@fujitsu.com header.b="grF1s9SQ" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=fujitsu.com; i=@fujitsu.com; q=dns/txt; s=fj2; t=1791277716; x=1822813716; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=F4/2ziFaQ+14aJz8mQUHdsabipvtJe9Jxq46ZQmJerg=; b=grF1s9SQ7r3HIj/kGSsPKaYkNqh/r8qXA5DcXClNqSfkxOneG79+swiA xQy8FUwYi8LjNRl/5kpRupvRvmi1GIbPDvqruaC9UvnnH0iAZtnDtTQA/ yX473h4uKIZlEPyGSTiUGtHkwGgFFmzs37u5K3/tH1AqIG5o0r1N7G7Fs vkMY3VDaYA9ZLyyOk//KQr/w7vwQdrYLJLCzEUqnQ6xbflqAqeN+RLc2t /neJOT5zRzFTWhqivky3r/dX6WW8VdqaRVnOrJUXCgHvhAalyeNrZu1cZ 8e+IGUfia4zTry4+6HxF6D4jo5jAfinH1MB/odkV65yGTJCPubg5MEjz/ Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: CyrKHvuWToK1ES1DJ8nzXQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: RkJRpu/eQWeJO87xh4O9xw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11926"; a="235074054" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.27,143,1786978800"; d="scan'208";a="235074054" Received: from gmgwnl01.global.fujitsu.com ([52.143.17.124]) by esa12.hc1455-7.c3s2.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Oct 2026 18:08:28 +0900 Received: from az2nlsmgm3.fujitsu.com (unknown [10.150.26.205]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by gmgwnl01.global.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEC28406126; Tue, 6 Oct 2026 09:08:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from az2nlsmom4.fujitsu.com (unknown [10.150.26.201]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by az2nlsmgm3.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E8571800336; Tue, 6 Oct 2026 09:08:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from FCCLS0092175.localdomain (unknown [10.10.34.24]) by az2nlsmom4.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0228720002A7; Tue, 6 Oct 2026 09:08:21 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2026 18:08:19 +0900 From: Kohei Enju To: Marc Zyngier Cc: Tomohiro Misono , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Mark Rutland , Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , Randy Dunlap , Thomas Gleixner , Radu Rendec , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] irqchip/gicv3: Add workaround for FUJITSU-MONAKA erratum E#030003 Message-ID: References: <20261002-monaka-fix-for-upstream-v1-0-4aec0b0cbe34@fujitsu.com> <20261002-monaka-fix-for-upstream-v1-4-4aec0b0cbe34@fujitsu.com> <86tsn42sqr.wl-maz@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86tsn42sqr.wl-maz@kernel.org> On 10/02 13:26, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Fri, 02 Oct 2026 11:26:52 +0100, > Tomohiro Misono wrote: > > > > From: Kohei Enju > > > > On affected FUJITSU-MONAKA CPUs, an SGI generated by writing to > > ICC_SGI0R_EL1, ICC_SGI1R_EL1, or ICC_ASGI1R_EL1 may be lost if the > > operation races with CPU interface processing triggered by the arrival > > of a higher-priority interrupt, an update to a pending interrupt, or a > > transition of the PE to the Sleep state. When this occurs, the system > > register write does not complete, causing the issuing core to hang. > > > > Is the SGI lost? Or is the sender core hanging? Both: the SGI is lost, and the sysreg write does not complete, causing the sending core to hang. > > I expect that virtualised accesses to these registers are not > affected, since they trap, but it'd be good to document this. You're right. I'll document it in v2. > > > Work around the erratum by writing 1 to the bit corresponding to the > > target SGI INTID in GICR_ISPENDR0 of each target PE's GIC Redistributor, > > instead of writing to the affected system registers. > > > > The affinity topology of affected systems has Aff0 == 0 for every PE, > > with PEs distinguished by higher affinity levels. Consequently, an > > ICC_SGI1R_EL1 write can target only one PE, so the workaround does not > > increase the number of writes required to send an SGI to multiple PEs. > > > > Accessing a target PE's GICR_ISPENDR0 requires its Redistributor base to > > have been discovered. Affected platforms conform to SBBR, which requires > > PSCI for secondary CPU boot. They therefore do not use the ACPI Parking > > protocol, which sends an IPI before the secondary CPU has initialized > > its Redistributor. With PSCI, a secondary CPU discovers its > > Redistributor before becoming an IPI target. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kohei Enju > > --- > > Documentation/arch/arm64/silicon-errata.rst | 2 ++ > > drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 50 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/arch/arm64/silicon-errata.rst b/Documentation/arch/arm64/silicon-errata.rst > > index 429bdf9a3d9d..13328a30df59 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/arch/arm64/silicon-errata.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/arch/arm64/silicon-errata.rst > > @@ -377,6 +377,8 @@ stable kernels. > > +----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------------------+ > > | Fujitsu | MONAKA | E#030002 | FUJITSU_ERRATUM_030002 | > > +----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------------------+ > > +| Fujitsu | MONAKA GICv3/v4 | E#030003 | N/A | > > ++----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------------------+ > > +----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------------------+ > > | ASR | ASR8601 | #8601001 | N/A | > > +----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------------------+ > > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c > > index 6e1fa5b247fc..e73fea8a0e27 100644 > > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c > > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c > > @@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ static DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(gic_nvidia_t241_erratum); > > > > static DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(gic_arm64_2941627_erratum); > > > > +static DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(gic_fujitsu_030003_erratum); > > + > > static struct gic_chip_data gic_data __read_mostly; > > static DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE(supports_deactivate_key); > > > > @@ -238,6 +240,9 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, has_rss); > > #define gic_data_rdist() (this_cpu_ptr(gic_data.rdists.rdist)) > > #define gic_data_rdist_rd_base() (gic_data_rdist()->rd_base) > > #define gic_data_rdist_sgi_base() (gic_data_rdist_rd_base() + SZ_64K) > > +#define gic_data_rdist_cpu(cpu) (per_cpu_ptr(gic_data.rdists.rdist, cpu)) > > +#define gic_data_rdist_rd_base_cpu(cpu) (gic_data_rdist_cpu(cpu)->rd_base) > > +#define gic_data_rdist_sgi_base_cpu(cpu) (gic_data_rdist_rd_base_cpu(cpu) + SZ_64K) > > > > /* Our default, arbitrary priority value. Linux only uses one anyway. */ > > #define DEFAULT_PMR_VALUE 0xf0 > > @@ -1373,6 +1378,13 @@ static void gic_send_sgi(u64 cluster_id, u16 tlist, unsigned int irq) > > gic_write_sgi1r(val); > > } > > > > +static void gic_send_sgi_via_rdist(int cpu, unsigned int irq) > > +{ > > + void __iomem *base = gic_data_rdist_sgi_base_cpu(cpu); > > + > > + writel_relaxed(BIT(irq), base + GICR_ISPENDR0); > > +} > > + > > I don't think there is any need for a helper, given that there is a > single caller. Ack. > > > static void gic_ipi_send_mask(struct irq_data *d, const struct cpumask *mask) > > { > > int cpu; > > @@ -1386,6 +1398,22 @@ static void gic_ipi_send_mask(struct irq_data *d, const struct cpumask *mask) > > */ > > dsb(ishst); > > > > + if (static_branch_unlikely(&gic_fujitsu_030003_erratum)) { > > + /* > > + * The affinity topology of affected systems has Aff0 == 0 for > > + * every PE; PEs are distinguished by higher affinity levels. > > + * ICC_SGI1R_EL1 therefore targets only one PE per write, so > > + * using GICR_ISPENDR0 does not increase the number of writes > > + * required to send an SGI to multiple PEs. > > This is not about the number of writes, but the cost of individual > writes. A sysreg access is almost free (at least it is on decent > implementations), while an MMIO access is probably one of the worst > offenders. Therefore implying that there is no extra overhead is > likely to be misleading. The commit message has the same problem. > > In any case, I don't think you need to justify anything here, as the > choice between costly SGIs and a dead CPU is pretty moot. Ack. I'll remove the comment and the corresponding explanation from the commit message. For context, on this implementation, we do not expect a significant latency difference between the MMIO and system register accesses, as both ultimately reach the same hardware block. > > > + */ > > + for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) > > + gic_send_sgi_via_rdist(cpu, d->hwirq); > > + > > + /* Force the above writes to GICR_ISPENDR0 to be executed */ > > + dsb(st); > > This doesn't force things to be executed. This is about completion of > the access, and with an nGnRE mapping, it doesn't enforce that the > stores actually reach the RDs, only an arbitrary point in the memory > subsystem. The only way to guarantee this is to perform a read-back. Understood. I hadn't considered this when writing v1, but on further reflection, I don't think gic_ipi_send_mask() needs to wait for the target CPUs to handle the IPIs. Given that the GICv2 driver does not wait for MMIO write completion either, I don't think we need to ensure completion of these writes before returning. If my understanding is correct, I'll remove the dsb(st) in v2. > > If this is relying on some additional properties that are > implementation specific, then this requires to be documented (for > example, if the implementation treats nGnRE as nGnRnE). > > > + return; > > + } > > + > > for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) { > > u64 cluster_id = MPIDR_TO_SGI_CLUSTER_ID(gic_cpu_to_affinity(cpu)); > > u16 tlist; > > @@ -1871,6 +1899,20 @@ static bool gic_enable_quirk_rk3399(void *data) > > return false; > > } > > > > +#define SMCCC_SOC_ID_FUJITSU_MONAKA 0x00040003 > > + > > +static bool gic_enable_quirk_fujitsu_030003(void *data) > > +{ > > + s32 soc_id = arm_smccc_get_soc_id_version(); > > + > > + /* Check JEP106 code for FUJITSU-MONAKA chip (0004:0003) */ > > + if (soc_id != SMCCC_SOC_ID_FUJITSU_MONAKA) > > + return false; > > Why is this keyed on some firmware interface, while it is the CPU > interface that is at fault? I'd expect that looking at the MIDR would > be more reliable. Ack. > > > + > > + static_branch_enable(&gic_fujitsu_030003_erratum); > > + return true; > > +} > > + > > static bool rd_set_non_coherent(void *data) > > { > > struct gic_chip_data *d = data; > > @@ -1951,6 +1993,12 @@ static const struct gic_quirk gic_quirks[] = { > > .mask = 0xff000fff, > > .init = gic_enable_quirk_rk3399, > > }, > > + { > > + .desc = "GICv3: Fujitsu erratum 030003", > > + .iidr = 0x0403043b, > > + .mask = 0xffffffff, > > + .init = gic_enable_quirk_fujitsu_030003, > > Same problem. This is looking that the distributor instead of the CPU. > It's OK to use it as a proxy for further filtering, but the final > decision should probably rest on the MIDR. Ack. I'll use the MIDR instead of the SoC ID. Thanks, Kohei > > Thanks, > > M. > > -- > Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.