From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/sme: Move storage of reg_smidr to __cpuinfo_store_cpu()
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2024 10:56:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a5cysfci.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241214-arm64-fix-boot-cpu-smidr-v1-1-0745c40772dd@kernel.org>
[+ Mark]
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 00:52:08 +0000,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> In commit 892f7237b3ff ("arm64: Delay initialisation of
> cpuinfo_arm64::reg_{zcr,smcr}") we moved access to ZCR, SMCR and SMIDR
> later in the boot process in order to ensure that we don't attempt to
> interact with them if SVE or SME is disabled on the command line.
> Unfortunately when initialising the boot CPU in init_cpu_features() we work
> on a copy of the struct cpuinfo_arm64 for the boot CPU used only during
> boot, not the percpu copy used by the sysfs code.
>
> Fix this by moving the handling for SMIDR_EL1 for the boot CPU to
> cpuinfo_store_boot_cpu() so it can operate on the percpu copy of the data.
> This reduces the potential for error that could come from having both the
> percpu and boot CPU copies in init_cpu_features().
>
> This issue wasn't apparent when testing on emulated platforms that do not
> report values in this ID register.
>
> Fixes: 892f7237b3ff ("arm64: Delay initialisation of cpuinfo_arm64::reg_{zcr,smcr}")
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 6 ------
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c | 11 +++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> index 6ce71f444ed84f9056196bb21bbfac61c9687e30..b88102fd2c20f77e25af6df513fda09a484e882e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -1167,12 +1167,6 @@ void __init init_cpu_features(struct cpuinfo_arm64 *info)
> id_aa64pfr1_sme(read_sanitised_ftr_reg(SYS_ID_AA64PFR1_EL1))) {
> unsigned long cpacr = cpacr_save_enable_kernel_sme();
>
> - /*
> - * We mask out SMPS since even if the hardware
> - * supports priorities the kernel does not at present
> - * and we block access to them.
> - */
> - info->reg_smidr = read_cpuid(SMIDR_EL1) & ~SMIDR_EL1_SMPS;
> vec_init_vq_map(ARM64_VEC_SME);
>
> cpacr_restore(cpacr);
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c
> index d79e88fccdfce427507e7a34c5959ce6309cbd12..b7d403da71e5a01ed3943eb37e7a00af238771a2 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c
> @@ -499,4 +499,15 @@ void __init cpuinfo_store_boot_cpu(void)
>
> boot_cpu_data = *info;
> init_cpu_features(&boot_cpu_data);
> +
> + /* SMIDR_EL1 needs to be stored in the percpu data for sysfs */
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_SME) &&
> + id_aa64pfr1_sme(read_sanitised_ftr_reg(SYS_ID_AA64PFR1_EL1))) {
> + /*
> + * We mask out SMPS since even if the hardware
> + * supports priorities the kernel does not at present
> + * and we block access to them.
> + */
> + info->reg_smidr = read_cpuid(SMIDR_EL1) & ~SMIDR_EL1_SMPS;
> + }
> }
I don't understand the need to single out SMIDR_EL1. It seems to only
make things even more fragile than they already are by adding more
synchronisation phases.
Why isn't the following a good enough fix? It makes it plain that
boot_cpu_data is only a copy of CPU0's initial boot state.
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c
index d79e88fccdfce..0cbb42fd48850 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c
@@ -497,6 +497,6 @@ void __init cpuinfo_store_boot_cpu(void)
struct cpuinfo_arm64 *info = &per_cpu(cpu_data, 0);
__cpuinfo_store_cpu(info);
+ init_cpu_features(info);
boot_cpu_data = *info;
- init_cpu_features(&boot_cpu_data);
}
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-14 10:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-14 0:52 [PATCH] arm64/sme: Move storage of reg_smidr to __cpuinfo_store_cpu() Mark Brown
2024-12-14 10:56 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2024-12-16 12:17 ` Mark Brown
2024-12-16 12:44 ` Mark Rutland
2024-12-16 13:23 ` Mark Brown
2024-12-16 14:31 ` Mark Rutland
2024-12-16 14:44 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-12-16 15:11 ` Mark Rutland
2024-12-16 12:38 ` Mark Rutland
2024-12-16 14:31 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-12-16 15:05 ` Mark Brown
2024-12-16 15:07 ` Mark Rutland
2024-12-16 15:21 ` Mark Brown
2024-12-16 15:28 ` Marc Zyngier
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=87a5cysfci.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=pcc@google.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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