Message-ID: <CAKcpw6XU=vwGMwMBJk-Rsg--8CqEis39DEAJRMboP=2aYd5r8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 11 Apr 2020 15:37:24 +0800
From:   YunQiang Su <wzssyqa@...il.com>
To:     Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>
Cc:     "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>,
        Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        linux-mips <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Xuefeng Li <lixuefeng@...ngson.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Limit check_bugs32() under CONFIG_32BIT

Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com> 于2020年4月9日周四 下午11:47写道：
>
>
>
> 于 2020年4月9日 GMT+08:00 下午11:07:46, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org> 写到:
> >On Thu, 9 Apr 2020, Jiaxun Yang wrote:
> >
> >> > > There is no need to build and call check_bugs32() under
> >> > > CONFIG_64BIT, just limit it under CONFIG_32BIT.
> >> >
> >> > Since 32bit is subset of 64bit, and due to the code, I think that
> >the
> >> > initial purpose
> >> > of check_bugs32() is also willing to run even with CONFIG_64BIT.
> >> >
> >> > For example, if we have a CPU which is 64bit, and work well on
> >64bit
> >> > mode, while has a bug only on 32bit mode, check_bugs32 should be
> >used
> >> > here.
> >> >
> >> > Loongson's 3A 1000 is the example, I cannot support FP32 mode well.
> >>
> >> In this case bugs32 only contains a workaround for MIPS34K, which is
> >a
> >> MIPS32 processor. It's safe to do so.
> >
> > This is because commit c65a5480ff29 ("[MIPS] Fix potential latency
> >problem due to non-atomic cpu_wait.") moved the other generic
> >workaround
> >elsewhere.
> >
> > The intent has been since historical commit 450ad16ba0ab ("Get rid of
> >arch/mips64/kernel.  9116 lines of code gone.") that `check_bugs32' is
> >for
> >generic errata affecting both 32-bit and 64-bit operation (e.g. 32-bit
> >instructions, which naturally may occur in both cases) and
> >`check_bugs64'
> >is for errata affecting 64-bit operation only (e.g. 64-bit
> >instructions).
> >
> >But currently it appears we have no generic errata handled, as surely a
> >
> >34K erratum cannot affect 64-bit operation.  So I think such a change
> >makes sense in principle (if a generic erratum appears in the future we
> >
> >can add a third category, which includes workarounds that are always
> >applied), but I think it has to be made in a cleaner way.
> >
> >Specifically `check_errata' has to be renamed to `check_errata32', some
> >
> >commentary added as to the intent, and last but not least a proper
> >change
> >description added that not only repeats what the change does (and what
> >everyone sees regardless), but actually justifies why the change is
> >made.
> >Saying: "There is no need[...]" does not tell us *why* there is no
> >need.
> >
> >> But my suggestion is if you're going to clean-up bugs and workarounds
> >> you'd better establish a file for silicon bugs and provide Kconfig
> >> options to enable & disable them. Manage bug dependencies by Kconfig
> >> will be easier.
> >
> > Why is using Kconfig supposed to be better?  Several configurations
> >support multiple processor types (e.g. swappable CPU daugthercards or
> >FPGA
> >soft-cores) and having to list CPU types across platforms as CPUs are
> >added is going to be a maintenance nightmare.  Whereas having
> >workarounds
> >or panics associated with run-time determination of the actual CPU type
> >
> >guarantees they will trigger where necessary.  The use of `init'
> >sections
> >assures the reclaim of memory for use after bootstrap.
>
> Actually I meant let bug checks depends on Kconfig's CPU selection.
>

I don't think this is a good idea. Since the routine is executed single time,
so it is not performance critical.
And Kconfig for per-cpu is bad for the future if we want to try to archive
single kernel image.

> It's guaranteed that you can only select one kind of CPU one time,
> to prevent the overhead of checking bugs on irrelevant processors.
>
> And we still have to check PRID/CPUTYPE during boot to enable
> proper workarounds, because the Kconfig options are telling about the possibility,
> which means a processor potentially has some kinds of bug.
>
> In this case, M34K's errata should depends on or selected by
> CPU_MIPS32_R2 in Kconfig.
>
> So there won't be any nightmare, but only reduced code :-)
>
> Probably we can build-up a general framework for checks & workarounds,
> and display affected bugs in /proc/cpuinfo?
> That's my personal thought.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >
> >OTOH I agree splitting off errata handling to a separate file may make
> >sense for structural reasons; we have it already for `check_bugs64'.
> >
> >  Maciej
>
> --
> Jiaxun Yang



-- 
YunQiang Su

Powered by blists - more mailing lists