From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753790AbbIARTs (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Sep 2015 13:19:48 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:33261 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753326AbbIARTq (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Sep 2015 13:19:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:19:36 +0100 From: Mark Rutland To: "pinskia@gmail.com" Cc: Andrew Pinski , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Suzuki Poulose , "steve.capper@linaro.org" Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] ARM64: Add AT_ARM64_MIDR to the aux vector Message-ID: <20150901171936.GD16430@leverpostej> References: <1440873982-44062-1-git-send-email-apinski@cavium.com> <20150901163304.GC16430@leverpostej> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 05:51:44PM +0100, pinskia@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 2, 2015, at 12:33 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > >> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 07:46:22PM +0100, Andrew Pinski wrote: > >> It is useful to pass down MIDR register down to userland if all of > >> the online cores are all the same type. This adds AT_ARM64_MIDR > >> aux vector type and passes down the midr system register. > >> > >> This is alternative to MIDR_EL1 part of > >> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-July/358995.html. > >> It allows for faster access to midr_el1 than going through a trap and > >> does not exist if the set of cores are not the same. > > > > I'm not sure I follow the rationale. If speed is important the > > application can cache the value the first time it reads it with a trap. > > It is also about compatibility also. Exposing the register is not > backwards compatible but using the aux vector is. So long as we have HWCAP_CPUID describing the availability of register access [2], then userspace can test for that before attempting to access the MIDR. Other than that, I don't see a backwards or forwards compatibility issue. > >> +u32 get_arm64_midr(void) > >> +{ > >> + int i; > >> + u32 midr = 0; > >> + > >> + for_each_online_cpu(i) { > >> + struct cpuinfo_arm64 *cpuinfo = &per_cpu(cpu_data, i); > >> + u32 oldmidr = midr; > >> + > >> + midr = cpuinfo->reg_midr; > >> + /* > >> + * If there are cpus which have a different > >> + * midr just return 0. > >> + */ > >> + if (oldmidr && oldmidr != midr) > >> + return 0; > >> + } > >> + > >> + return midr; > >> +} > > > > If I have a big.LITTLE system where all the big CPUs are currently > > offline, this will leave the MIDR the little CPUs in the auxvec. > > However, at any point after this has run, I could hotplug the big CPUs > > on and the little CPUs off, leaving this reporting a MIDR that > > represents none of the online CPUs. > > > > Given big.LITTLE and the potential for physical/dynamic hotplug (where > > we won't know all the MIDRs in advance), I don't think that we can > > generally expose a common MIDR in this fashion, and I don't think that > > we should give the impression that we can. > > This is standard issue with hot plug and big.little. Really big.little > is a design flaw but I am not going into that here. Regardless of our personal feelings on big.LITTLE, it's something we have to deal with. Hopefully it's a non-issue anyway; a MIDR provided by this interface can really only be used to derive optimisation criteria rather than non-architected properties required for correctness. > > I think that the only things we can do are expose the MIDR for CPU the > > code is currently executing on (as Suzuki's patches do), and/or expose > > all the MIDRs for currently online CPUs (as Steve's [1] patch does). > > Anything else leaves us trying to provide semantics that we cannot > > guarantee. > > Except they are not backwards compatible which means nobody in their > right mind would use the register to get the midr that way. I assume you missed the discussion of HWCAP_CPUID, which prevents the compatibility issue I believe you're considering here. > I am sorry but having a newer version of glibc working on a year old > kernel is not going to fly. I'm not sure I follow this, unless you meant _not_ working. Thanks, Mark. [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-July/359127.html [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-August/363559.html