From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Wyes Karny <wyes.karny@amd.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lewis.Carroll@amd.com,
Mario.Limonciello@amd.com, gautham.shenoy@amd.com,
Ananth.Narayan@amd.com, bharata@amd.com, len.brown@intel.com,
x86@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com,
chang.seok.bae@intel.com, keescook@chromium.org, metze@samba.org,
zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com, mark.rutland@arm.com,
rui.zhang@intel.com, puwen@hygon.cn, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com,
andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, jing2.liu@intel.com,
jmattson@google.com, pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] x86: Remove vendor checks from prefer_mwait_c1_over_halt
Date: Wed, 25 May 2022 18:55:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220525165548.GJ2578@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <67ca737f7cdabfc75f930cf59b49d910d8c491d6.1653324016.git-series.wyes.karny@amd.com>
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 10:25:50PM +0530, Wyes Karny wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> index 4e0178b066c5..7bf4d73c9522 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> @@ -813,28 +813,43 @@ static void amd_e400_idle(void)
> }
>
> /*
> - * Intel Core2 and older machines prefer MWAIT over HALT for C1.
> - * We can't rely on cpuidle installing MWAIT, because it will not load
> - * on systems that support only C1 -- so the boot default must be MWAIT.
> + * Prefer MWAIT over HALT if MWAIT is supported, MWAIT_CPUID leaf
> + * exists and whenever MONITOR/MWAIT extensions are present there is at
> + * least one C1 substate.
> *
> - * Some AMD machines are the opposite, they depend on using HALT.
> - *
> - * So for default C1, which is used during boot until cpuidle loads,
> - * use MWAIT-C1 on Intel HW that has it, else use HALT.
> + * Do not prefer MWAIT if MONITOR instruction has a bug or idle=nomwait
> + * is passed to kernel commandline parameter.
> */
> static int prefer_mwait_c1_over_halt(const struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> {
> + u32 eax, ebx, ecx, edx;
> +
> /* User has disallowed the use of MWAIT. Fallback to HALT */
> if (boot_option_idle_override == IDLE_NOMWAIT)
> return 0;
>
> - if (c->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
> + /* MWAIT is not supported on this platform. Fallback to HALT */
> + if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MWAIT))
> return 0;
>
> - if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MWAIT) || boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_MONITOR))
> + /* Monitor has a bug. Fallback to HALT */
> + if (boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_MONITOR))
> return 0;
>
> - return 1;
> + cpuid(CPUID_MWAIT_LEAF, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> +
> + /*
> + * If MWAIT extensions are not available, it is safe to use MWAIT
> + * with EAX=0, ECX=0.
> + */
> + if (!(ecx & CPUID5_ECX_EXTENSIONS_SUPPORTED))
> + return 1;
> +
> + /*
> + * If MWAIT extensions are available, there should be at least one
> + * MWAIT C1 substate present.
> + */
> + return (edx & MWAIT_C1_SUBSTATE_MASK);
> }
Seems reasonable enough to me,
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-25 16:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-23 16:55 [PATCH v4 0/3] x86: Prefer MWAIT over HLT on AMD processors Wyes Karny
2022-05-23 16:55 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] x86: Handle idle=nomwait cmdline properly for x86_idle Wyes Karny
2022-05-25 8:06 ` Zhang Rui
2022-06-02 15:41 ` Wyes Karny
2022-06-05 12:32 ` Zhang Rui
2022-06-06 9:13 ` Wyes Karny
2022-05-23 16:55 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] x86: Remove vendor checks from prefer_mwait_c1_over_halt Wyes Karny
2022-05-25 16:55 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2022-06-06 12:50 ` Zhang Rui
2022-06-06 15:37 ` Dave Hansen
2022-06-07 1:16 ` Zhang Rui
2022-05-23 16:55 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] x86: Fix comment for X86_FEATURE_ZEN Wyes Karny
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=20220525165548.GJ2578@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=Ananth.Narayan@amd.com \
--cc=Lewis.Carroll@amd.com \
--cc=Mario.Limonciello@amd.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=bharata@amd.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=chang.seok.bae@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jing2.liu@intel.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=metze@samba.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com \
--cc=puwen@hygon.cn \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=rui.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=wyes.karny@amd.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com \
/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