| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <c36fab90-ddcc-da88-b959-224d3ce6b965@wdc.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 18:25:10 -0700
From: Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
To: Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>
Cc: "palmer@...ive.com" <palmer@...ive.com>,
"linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] RISC-V: Add cpu_operatios structure
On 8/15/18 11:21 PM, Anup Patel wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com> wrote:
>> On 8/15/18 10:02 PM, Anup Patel wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 5:26 AM, Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Defining cpu_operations now helps adding cpu hotplug
>>>> support in proper manner. Moreover, it provides flexibility
>>>> in supporting other cpu enable/boot methods can be
>>>> supported in future. This patch has been largely inspired from
>>>> ARM64. However, a default boot method is defined for RISC-V unlike
>>>> ARM64.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/riscv/include/asm/smp.h | 10 ++++++++++
>>>> arch/riscv/kernel/smp.c | 8 ++++++++
>>>> arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>>> 3 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/smp.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/smp.h
>>>> index 0763337b..2bb6e6c2 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/smp.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/smp.h
>>>> @@ -28,6 +28,15 @@
>>>> extern u64 __cpu_logical_map[NR_CPUS];
>>>> #define cpu_logical_map(cpu) __cpu_logical_map[cpu]
>>>>
>>>> +struct cpu_operations {
>>>> + const char *name;
>>>> + int (*cpu_init)(unsigned int);
>>>> + int (*cpu_prepare)(unsigned int);
>>>> + int (*cpu_boot)(unsigned int, struct task_struct *);
>>>> +};
>>>> +extern struct cpu_operations cpu_ops;
>>>> +void smp_set_cpu_ops(const struct cpu_operations *cpu_ops);
>>>> +
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>>>>
>>>> /* SMP initialization hook for setup_arch */
>>>> @@ -57,5 +66,6 @@ static inline void cpuid_to_hartid_mask(const struct
>>>> cpumask *in,
>>>> cpumask_set_cpu(cpu_logical_map(0), out);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +
>>>> #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
>>>> #endif /* _ASM_RISCV_SMP_H */
>>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/smp.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/smp.c
>>>> index 4ab70480..5de58ced 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/smp.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/smp.c
>>>> @@ -58,6 +58,14 @@ void cpuid_to_hartid_mask(const struct cpumask *in,
>>>> struct cpumask *out)
>>>> for_each_cpu(cpu, in)
>>>> cpumask_set_cpu(cpu_logical_map(cpu), out);
>>>> }
>>>> +struct cpu_operations cpu_ops __ro_after_init;
>>>> +
>>>> +void smp_set_cpu_ops(const struct cpu_operations *ops)
>>>> +{
>>>> + if (ops)
>>>> + cpu_ops = *ops;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>
>>>
>>> Move both cpu_ops and smp_set_cpu_ops() to smpboot.c. This way
>>> you will not require to make cpu_ops as global.
>>>
>> ok.
>>
>>> Further, I think cpu_ops should be a pointer and initial value should
>>> be &default_ops.
>>>
>>> Something like this:
>>> struct cpu_operations *cpu_ops __ro_after_init = &default_ops;
>>>
>>
>> That will work too. However, setting it through smp_set_cpu_ops provides a
>> sample implementation for any future SMP enable methods. That's why I used
>> the API. I can change it if you think otherwise.
>
> Having thought about this more, I think cpu_ops should be an pointer array
> of NR_CPUS size. This means its not necessary to have have same ops for
> all CPUs. The ARM64 implementation of CPU operations also allows separate
> CPU operations for each CPU.
>
I initially had NR_CPUs based pointer array implementation similar to
arm64. However, I couldn't find a use case for it. So I removed it.
> For example, let's us assume that we have an SOC where we 2 cores
> per-cluster and N clusters. All CPUs of cluster0 comes up at the same time
> whereas cluster1 onwards we have to bring-up CPUs using special HW
> mechanism.
>
I was not aware of such a use case. If that's a valid possible future
use case, we should make it pointer array implementation. I will add it
in v2
Regards,
Atish
>>
>>
>>
>>>> /* Unsupported */
>>>> int setup_profiling_timer(unsigned int multiplier)
>>>> {
>>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c
>>>> index 6ab2bb1b..045a1a45 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c
>>>> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
>>>> #include <linux/irq.h>
>>>> #include <linux/of.h>
>>>> #include <linux/sched/task_stack.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/smp.h>
>>>> #include <asm/irq.h>
>>>> #include <asm/mmu_context.h>
>>>> #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
>>>> @@ -38,6 +39,7 @@
>>>>
>>>> void *__cpu_up_stack_pointer[NR_CPUS];
>>>> void *__cpu_up_task_pointer[NR_CPUS];
>>>> +struct cpu_operations default_ops;
>>>>
>>>> void __init smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void)
>>>> {
>>>> @@ -53,6 +55,7 @@ void __init setup_smp(void)
>>>> int hart, found_boot_cpu = 0;
>>>> int cpuid = 1;
>>>>
>>>> + smp_set_cpu_ops(&default_ops);
>>>> while ((dn = of_find_node_by_type(dn, "cpu"))) {
>>>> hart = riscv_of_processor_hart(dn);
>>>>
>>>> @@ -73,10 +76,8 @@ void __init setup_smp(void)
>>>> BUG_ON(!found_boot_cpu);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -int __cpu_up(unsigned int cpu, struct task_struct *tidle)
>>>> +int default_cpu_boot(unsigned int hartid, struct task_struct *tidle)
>>>> {
>>>> - int hartid = cpu_logical_map(cpu);
>>>> - tidle->thread_info.cpu = cpu;
>>>> /*
>>>> * On RISC-V systems, all harts boot on their own accord. Our
>>>> _start
>>>> * selects the first hart to boot the kernel and causes the
>>>> remainder
>>>> @@ -84,13 +85,28 @@ int __cpu_up(unsigned int cpu, struct task_struct
>>>> *tidle)
>>>> * setup by that main hart. Writing __cpu_up_stack_pointer
>>>> signals to
>>>> * the spinning harts that they can continue the boot process.
>>>> */
>>>> - smp_mb();
>>>> +
>>>> __cpu_up_stack_pointer[hartid] = task_stack_page(tidle) +
>>>> THREAD_SIZE;
>>>> __cpu_up_task_pointer[hartid] = tidle;
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +int __cpu_up(unsigned int cpu, struct task_struct *tidle)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int err = -1;
>>>> + int hartid = cpu_logical_map(cpu);
>>>>
>>>> - while (!cpu_online(cpu))
>>>> - cpu_relax();
>>>> + tidle->thread_info.cpu = cpu;
>>>> + smp_mb();
>>>>
>>>> + if (cpu_ops.cpu_boot)
>>>> + err = cpu_ops.cpu_boot(hartid, tidle);
>>>> + if (!err) {
>>>> + while (!cpu_online(cpu))
>>>> + cpu_relax();
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + pr_err("CPU %d [hartid %d]failed to boot\n", cpu,
>>>> hartid);
>>>> + }
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> @@ -117,3 +133,9 @@ asmlinkage void __init smp_callin(void)
>>>> preempt_disable();
>>>> cpu_startup_entry(CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_IDLE);
>>>> }
>>>> +
>>>> +
>>>> +struct cpu_operations default_ops = {
>>>> + .name = "default",
>>>> + .cpu_boot = default_cpu_boot,
>>>> +};
>>>
>>>
>>> I think having dedicated source file for default_ops makes more sense
>>> so that we have a clear/simple reference implementation of cpu_operations.
>>>
>>> Eventually, we might have one source file for each type of SMP enable
>>> method.
>>>
>>> Try to keep smpboot.c generic and independent of any cpu_operations.
>>> What say?
>>>
>>
>> Any other SMP enable method should definitely get its own file. I am not
>> sure about the default one though. As default_ops is truly the default
>> booting method which will always be present in absence of anything else, I
>> thought keeping it smpboot.c emphasizes that point. Moreover, it's not that
>> big even. But I am open to moving to it's own source file if you strongly
>> think we should do that.
>>
>
> I am more inclined towards keeping default_ops in separate source but it's
> not a big deal. Let's wait for more comments.
>
> Regards,
> Anup
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists