Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] arm64: cpufeature: Allow early detect of specific features

[Daniel Thompson]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:21:55PM +0000, Julien Thierry wrote:
> On 22/01/18 12:05, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > On 17/01/18 11:54, Julien Thierry wrote:
> > > From: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > Currently it is not possible to detect features of the boot CPU
> > > until the other CPUs have been brought up.
> > > 
> > > This prevents us from reacting to features of the boot CPU until
> > > fairly late in the boot process. To solve this we allow a subset
> > > of features (that are likely to be common to all clusters) to be
> > > detected based on the boot CPU alone.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > [julien.thierry@xxxxxxx: check non-boot cpu missing early features, avoid
> > >              duplicates between early features and normal
> > >              features]
> > > Signed-off-by: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@xxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >   arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 69
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > >   1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > > b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > > index a73a592..6698404 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > > @@ -52,6 +52,8 @@
> > >   DECLARE_BITMAP(cpu_hwcaps, ARM64_NCAPS);
> > >   EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpu_hwcaps);
> > > 
> > > +static void __init setup_early_feature_capabilities(void);
> > > +
> > >   /*
> > >    * Flag to indicate if we have computed the system wide
> > >    * capabilities based on the boot time active CPUs. This
> > > @@ -542,6 +544,8 @@ void __init init_cpu_features(struct
> > > cpuinfo_arm64 *info)
> > >           init_cpu_ftr_reg(SYS_ZCR_EL1, info->reg_zcr);
> > >           sve_init_vq_map();
> > >       }
> > > +
> > > +    setup_early_feature_capabilities();
> > >   }
> > > 
> > >   static void update_cpu_ftr_reg(struct arm64_ftr_reg *reg, u64 new)
> > > @@ -846,7 +850,7 @@ static bool has_no_fpsimd(const struct
> > > arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int __unus
> > >                       ID_AA64PFR0_FP_SHIFT) < 0;
> > >   }
> > > 
> > > -static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_features[] = {
> > > +static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_early_features[] = {
> > >       {
> > >           .desc = "GIC system register CPU interface",
> > >           .capability = ARM64_HAS_SYSREG_GIC_CPUIF,
> > > @@ -857,6 +861,10 @@ static bool has_no_fpsimd(const struct
> > > arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int __unus
> > >           .sign = FTR_UNSIGNED,
> > >           .min_field_value = 1,
> > >       },
> > > +    {}
> > > +};
> > > +
> > 
> > 
> > Julien,
> > 
> > One potential problem with this is that we don't have a way
> > to make this work on a "theoretical" system with and without
> > GIC system reg interface. i.e, if we don't have the CONFIG
> > enabled for using ICC system regs for IRQ flags, the kernel
> > could still panic. I understand this is not a "normal" configuration
> > but, may be we could make the panic option based on whether
> > we actually use the system regs early enough ?
> > 
> 
> I see, however I'm not sure what happens in the GIC drivers if we have a CPU
> running with a GICv3 and other CPUs with something else... But of course
> this is not technically limited by the arm64 capabilities handling.

Shouldn't each CPU be sharing the same GIC anyway? It so its not some
have GICv3+ and some have GICv2. The theoretical system described above 
*has* a GICv3+ but some participants in the cluster are not able to 
talk to it as like a co-processor.

The ARM ARM is a little vague about whether, if a GIC implements a
system register interface, then a core must provide access to it. Even
so, first question is whether such a system is architecture compliant?


Daniel.


> What behaviour would you be looking for? A way to prevent the CPU to be
> brought up instead of panicking?
> 
> > Btw, I am rewriting the capabilities infrastructure to allow per-cap
> > control on how it should be treated. I might add an EARLY scope for
> > caps which could cover this and may be VHE.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- 
> Julien Thierry