* [PATCH] PPC: BOOK3S: Disable/Enable TM looking at the ibm, pa-features device tree entry
@ 2014-04-30 8:11 Aneesh Kumar K.V
2014-05-01 5:01 ` Michael Neuling
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V @ 2014-04-30 8:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: benh, paulus; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, Aneesh Kumar K.V
Runtime disable transactional memory feature looking at pa-features
device tree entry. This provides a mechanism to disable TM on P8
systems.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
index 668aa4791fd7..537bd7e7db0b 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
@@ -161,6 +161,11 @@ static struct ibm_pa_feature {
{CPU_FTR_NODSISRALIGN, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1},
{0, MMU_FTR_CI_LARGE_PAGE, 0, 1, 2, 0},
{CPU_FTR_REAL_LE, PPC_FEATURE_TRUE_LE, 5, 0, 0},
+ /*
+ * We should use CPU_FTR_TM_COMP so that if we disable TM, it won't get
+ * enabled via device tree
+ */
+ {CPU_FTR_TM_COMP, 0, 0, 22, 0, 0},
};
static void __init scan_features(unsigned long node, unsigned char *ftrs,
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] PPC: BOOK3S: Disable/Enable TM looking at the ibm, pa-features device tree entry
2014-04-30 8:11 [PATCH] PPC: BOOK3S: Disable/Enable TM looking at the ibm, pa-features device tree entry Aneesh Kumar K.V
@ 2014-05-01 5:01 ` Michael Neuling
2014-05-01 15:14 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Michael Neuling @ 2014-05-01 5:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Aneesh Kumar K.V; +Cc: paulus, linuxppc-dev
Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Runtime disable transactional memory feature looking at pa-features
> device tree entry. This provides a mechanism to disable TM on P8
> systems.
What are we actually achieving with this?
> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
> index 668aa4791fd7..537bd7e7db0b 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
> @@ -161,6 +161,11 @@ static struct ibm_pa_feature {
> {CPU_FTR_NODSISRALIGN, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1},
> {0, MMU_FTR_CI_LARGE_PAGE, 0, 1, 2, 0},
> {CPU_FTR_REAL_LE, PPC_FEATURE_TRUE_LE, 5, 0, 0},
> + /*
> + * We should use CPU_FTR_TM_COMP so that if we disable TM, it won't get
> + * enabled via device tree
> + */
> + {CPU_FTR_TM_COMP, 0, 0, 22, 0, 0},
What does this do to guests? Will it turn TM unavailable into an
illegal instruction?
Mikey
> };
>
> static void __init scan_features(unsigned long node, unsigned char *ftrs,
> --
> 1.9.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] PPC: BOOK3S: Disable/Enable TM looking at the ibm, pa-features device tree entry
2014-05-01 5:01 ` Michael Neuling
@ 2014-05-01 15:14 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2014-05-02 5:17 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V @ 2014-05-01 15:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Neuling; +Cc: paulus, linuxppc-dev
Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org> writes:
> Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> Runtime disable transactional memory feature looking at pa-features
>> device tree entry. This provides a mechanism to disable TM on P8
>> systems.
>
> What are we actually achieving with this?
PAPR compliance :) ? Also I wanted to disable guest kernel from doing
TM related save restore. Guest kernel already look at the cpu feature
before doing that. Hence needed a mechanism to disable the feature.
Things like
static inline void __switch_to_tm(struct task_struct *prev)
{
if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_TM)) {
tm_enable();
tm_reclaim_task(prev);
}
}
>
>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c | 5 +++++
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
>> index 668aa4791fd7..537bd7e7db0b 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
>> @@ -161,6 +161,11 @@ static struct ibm_pa_feature {
>> {CPU_FTR_NODSISRALIGN, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1},
>> {0, MMU_FTR_CI_LARGE_PAGE, 0, 1, 2, 0},
>> {CPU_FTR_REAL_LE, PPC_FEATURE_TRUE_LE, 5, 0, 0},
>> + /*
>> + * We should use CPU_FTR_TM_COMP so that if we disable TM, it won't get
>> + * enabled via device tree
>> + */
>> + {CPU_FTR_TM_COMP, 0, 0, 22, 0, 0},
>
> What does this do to guests? Will it turn TM unavailable into an
> illegal instruction?
>
Good suggestion. I guess it should be facility unavailable interrupt ?
I should also make the sure __init_HFSCR only set HFSCR_TM only if the
cpu feature is enabled ?
-aneesh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] PPC: BOOK3S: Disable/Enable TM looking at the ibm, pa-features device tree entry
2014-05-01 15:14 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
@ 2014-05-02 5:17 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2014-06-04 10:36 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V @ 2014-05-02 5:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Neuling; +Cc: paulus, linuxppc-dev
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org> writes:
>
>> Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Runtime disable transactional memory feature looking at pa-features
>>> device tree entry. This provides a mechanism to disable TM on P8
>>> systems.
>>
>> What are we actually achieving with this?
>
> PAPR compliance :) ? Also I wanted to disable guest kernel from doing
> TM related save restore. Guest kernel already look at the cpu feature
> before doing that. Hence needed a mechanism to disable the feature.
>
> Things like
>
> static inline void __switch_to_tm(struct task_struct *prev)
> {
> if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_TM)) {
> tm_enable();
> tm_reclaim_task(prev);
> }
> }
>
>
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c | 5 +++++
>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
>>> index 668aa4791fd7..537bd7e7db0b 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
>>> @@ -161,6 +161,11 @@ static struct ibm_pa_feature {
>>> {CPU_FTR_NODSISRALIGN, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1},
>>> {0, MMU_FTR_CI_LARGE_PAGE, 0, 1, 2, 0},
>>> {CPU_FTR_REAL_LE, PPC_FEATURE_TRUE_LE, 5, 0, 0},
>>> + /*
>>> + * We should use CPU_FTR_TM_COMP so that if we disable TM, it won't get
>>> + * enabled via device tree
>>> + */
>>> + {CPU_FTR_TM_COMP, 0, 0, 22, 0, 0},
>>
>> What does this do to guests? Will it turn TM unavailable into an
>> illegal instruction?
>>
>
> Good suggestion. I guess it should be facility unavailable interrupt ?
> I should also make the sure __init_HFSCR only set HFSCR_TM only if the
> cpu feature is enabled ?
I looked at this and I guess we don't need to update HFSCR considering
that the guest kernel (privileged) access to TM always happen within
if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_TM)) conditional block. Also we want to
disable this per guest and there is no easy way to suggest hypervisor
that disable TM in HFSCR.
BTW we already do this for guest problme state. We do in guest kernel
if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_TM))
regs->msr |= MSR_TM;
IIUC that should result in facility unavailable interrupt when problem
state try to access TM ?
I will try to run some test with the patch and update here.
-aneesh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] PPC: BOOK3S: Disable/Enable TM looking at the ibm, pa-features device tree entry
2014-05-02 5:17 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
@ 2014-06-04 10:36 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V @ 2014-06-04 10:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Neuling; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, paulus
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
>> Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org> writes:
>>
>>> Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Runtime disable transactional memory feature looking at pa-features
>>>> device tree entry. This provides a mechanism to disable TM on P8
>>>> systems.
>>>
>>> What are we actually achieving with this?
>>
>> PAPR compliance :) ? Also I wanted to disable guest kernel from doing
>> TM related save restore. Guest kernel already look at the cpu feature
>> before doing that. Hence needed a mechanism to disable the feature.
>>
>> Things like
>>
>> static inline void __switch_to_tm(struct task_struct *prev)
>> {
>> if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_TM)) {
>> tm_enable();
>> tm_reclaim_task(prev);
>> }
>> }
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c | 5 +++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
>>>> index 668aa4791fd7..537bd7e7db0b 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
>>>> @@ -161,6 +161,11 @@ static struct ibm_pa_feature {
>>>> {CPU_FTR_NODSISRALIGN, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1},
>>>> {0, MMU_FTR_CI_LARGE_PAGE, 0, 1, 2, 0},
>>>> {CPU_FTR_REAL_LE, PPC_FEATURE_TRUE_LE, 5, 0, 0},
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * We should use CPU_FTR_TM_COMP so that if we disable TM, it won't get
>>>> + * enabled via device tree
>>>> + */
>>>> + {CPU_FTR_TM_COMP, 0, 0, 22, 0, 0},
>>>
>>> What does this do to guests? Will it turn TM unavailable into an
>>> illegal instruction?
>>>
>>
>> Good suggestion. I guess it should be facility unavailable interrupt ?
>> I should also make the sure __init_HFSCR only set HFSCR_TM only if the
>> cpu feature is enabled ?
>
> I looked at this and I guess we don't need to update HFSCR considering
> that the guest kernel (privileged) access to TM always happen within
> if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_TM)) conditional block. Also we want to
> disable this per guest and there is no easy way to suggest hypervisor
> that disable TM in HFSCR.
>
> BTW we already do this for guest problme state. We do in guest kernel
>
> if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_TM))
> regs->msr |= MSR_TM;
>
> IIUC that should result in facility unavailable interrupt when problem
> state try to access TM ?
>
> I will try to run some test with the patch and update here.
This will actually result in illegal instruction.
-aneesh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-06-04 10:36 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-04-30 8:11 [PATCH] PPC: BOOK3S: Disable/Enable TM looking at the ibm, pa-features device tree entry Aneesh Kumar K.V
2014-05-01 5:01 ` Michael Neuling
2014-05-01 15:14 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2014-05-02 5:17 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2014-06-04 10:36 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
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).