Re: [PATCH v2 06/18] arm64: arch_timer: Add infrastructure for multiple erratum detection methods

[Daniel Lezcano]

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 03:56:52PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 29/03/17 15:27, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 04:38:41PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> On 28/03/17 15:55, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 03:48:23PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>>> On 28/03/17 15:36, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 03:07:52PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [ ... ]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -bool arch_timer_check_global_cap_erratum(const struct arch_timer_erratum_workaround *wa,
> >>>>>>>>> -					 const void *arg)
> >>>>>>>>> +bool arch_timer_check_cap_erratum(const struct arch_timer_erratum_workaround *wa,
> >>>>>>>>> +				  const void *arg)
> >>>>>>>>>  {
> >>>>>>>>> -	return cpus_have_cap((uintptr_t)wa->id);
> >>>>>>>>> +	return cpus_have_cap((uintptr_t)wa->id) | this_cpu_has_cap((uintptr_t)wa->id);
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Not quite. Here, you're making all capability-based errata to be be
> >>>>>>>> global (if a single CPU in the system has a capability, then by
> >>>>>>>> transitivity cpus_have_cap returns true). If that's a big-little system,
> >>>>>>>> you end-up applying the workaround to all CPUs, including those unaffected.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'd rather drop cpus_have_cap altogether and rely on individual CPU
> >>>>>>>> matching (since we don't have a need for a global capability erratum
> >>>>>>>> handling yet).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ok, thanks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Quick update. I've just implemented this, and found out that getting rid
> >>>>>> of local/global has an unfortunate effect:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Since we only probe the global errata (using ACPI for example) on the
> >>>>>> boot CPU path, we lose propagation of the erratum across the secondary
> >>>>>> CPUs. One way of solving this is to convert the secondary boot path to
> >>>>>> be aware of DT vs ACPI vs detection method of the month. Which isn't
> >>>>>> easy, since by the time we boot secondary CPUs, we don't have the
> >>>>>> pointers to the various ACPI tables anymore. Also, assuming we were
> >>>>>> careful and saved the pointers, the tables may have been unmapped. Fun.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My proposal was supposed to prevent that. The detecion is done in the
> >>>>> subsystems, ACPI detects ACPI errata, DT detects DT errata and CPU detects CPU
> >>>>> errata. The drivers get the errata and enable the workaround. The id
> >>>>> association <-> errata self contains errata types (void *, char *, int). So
> >>>>> everything can be done in a CPU basis without local / global dance.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm sorry, but it feels like a Jumbo-Jet sized hammer to try and squash
> >>>> a fly (I'm staying away from the frozen shark metaphor here). You're
> >>>> willing to add a whole list of things with private ids that need
> >>>> matching to kill a flag? I don't think this buys us anything but extra
> >>>> complexity and another maintenance headache.
> >>>
> >>> Well, it is like your approach except it is split in two steps.
> >>>
> >>> Can you explain where is the extra complexity ? May be I am missing the point.
> >>
> >> This is how I understand your approach:
> >>
> >> - Boot the first CPU
> >> - Build a list of errata discovered at that time
> >> - Apply erratum on the boot CPU if required, using a yet-to-be-invented
> >> private id matching mechanism,
> >> - Boot a secondary CPU
> >> - Apply erratum if required, parsing the list
> >> - Realise that you don't have the full list (this CPU comes with an
> >> erratum that was not in the initial list)
> >> - Add more to the list
> >> - Apply erratum, using the same matching mechanism
> >>
> >> This is mine:
> >>
> >> - Boot the first CPU
> >> - Apply global erratum to all CPUs
> >> - Apply local erratum
> >> - Boot a secondary CPU
> >> - Apply local erratum
> >>
> >> In my case, everything is static, and I don't need to rematch each CPU
> >> against the list of globally applicable errata.
> >>
> >> If my understanding is flawed, let me know.
> > 
> > Any of our understanding is flawed. I think that needs a maturation period.
> 
> Well, these patches have been maturing for a while, and time is running
> out. If you have a better idea that is more than a concept, please post
> the code, I'd be happy to review it.

No. I had a comment regarding global/local but it is apparently not possible.
Let put the concept apart and move forward.

Thanks.

  -- Daniel

-- 

 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog