On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 06:28:43PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>
>
> On 11/10/2019 15:21, Dave Martin wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 01:13:18PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > Hi Dave
> >>
> >>On 11/10/2019 12:36, Dave Martin wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:15:15PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> >>>>The NO_FPSIMD capability is defined with scope SYSTEM, which implies
> >>>>that the "absence" of FP/SIMD on at least one CPU is detected only
> >>>>after all the SMP CPUs are brought up. However, we use the status
> >>>>of this capability for every context switch. So, let us change
> >>>>the scop to LOCAL_CPU to allow the detection of this capability
> >>>>as and when the first CPU without FP is brought up.
> >>>>
> >>>>Also, the current type allows hotplugged CPU to be brought up without
> >>>>FP/SIMD when all the current CPUs have FP/SIMD and we have the userspace
> >>>>up. Fix both of these issues by changing the capability to
> >>>>BOOT_RESTRICTED_LOCAL_CPU_FEATURE.
> >>>>
> >>>>Fixes: 82e0191a1aa11abf ("arm64: Support systems without FP/ASIMD")
> >>>>Cc: Will Deacon <w...@kernel.org>
> >>>>Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com>
> >>>>Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com>
> >>>>Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poul...@arm.com>
> >>>>---
> >>>> arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 2 +-
> >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>>diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> >>>>b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> >>>>index 9323bcc40a58..0f9eace6c64b 100644
> >>>>--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> >>>>+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> >>>>@@ -1361,7 +1361,7 @@ static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities
> >>>>arm64_features[] = {
> >>>> {
> >>>> /* FP/SIMD is not implemented */
> >>>> .capability = ARM64_HAS_NO_FPSIMD,
> >>>>- .type = ARM64_CPUCAP_SYSTEM_FEATURE,
> >>>>+ .type = ARM64_CPUCAP_BOOT_RESTRICTED_CPU_LOCAL_FEATURE,
> >>>
> >>>ARM64_HAS_NO_FPSIMD is really a disability, not a capability.
> >>>
> >>>Although we have other things that smell like this (CPU errata for
> >>>example), I wonder whether inverting the meaning in the case would
> >>>make the situation easier to understand.
> >>
> >>Yes, it is indeed a disability, more on that below.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>So, we'd have ARM64_HAS_FPSIMD, with a minimum (signed) feature field
> >>>value of 0. Then this just looks like an ARM64_CPUCAP_SYSTEM_FEATURE
> >>>IIUC. We'd just need to invert the sense of the check in
> >>>system_supports_fpsimd().
> >>
> >>This is particularly something we want to avoid with this patch. We want
> >>to make sure that we have the up-to-date status of the disability right
> >>when it happens. i.e, a CPU without FP/SIMD is brought up. With
> >>SYSTEM_FEATURE
> >>you have to wait until we bring all the CPUs up. Also, for HAS_FPSIMD,
> >>you must wait until all the CPUs are up, unlike the negated capability.
> >
> >I don't see why waiting for the random defective early CPU to come up is
> >better than waiting for all the early CPUs to come up and then deciding.
> >
> >Kernel-mode NEON aside, the status of this cap should not matter until
> >we enter userspace for the first time.
> >
> >The only issue is if e.g., crypto drivers that can use kernel-mode NEON
> >probe for it before all early CPUs are up, and so cache the wrong
> >decision. The current approach doesn't cope with that anyway AFAICT.
>
> This approach does in fact. With LOCAL_CPU scope, the moment a defective
> CPU turns up, we mark the "capability" and thus the kernel cannot use
> the neon then onwards, unlike the existing case where we have time till
> we boot all the CPUs (even when the boot CPU may be defective).
I guess that makes sense.
I'm now wondering what happens if anything tries to use kernel-mode NEON
before SVE is initialised -- which doesn't happen until cpufeatures
configures the system features.
I don't think your proposed change makes anything worse here, but it may
need looking into.
Cheers
---Dave
