linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 05/10] powerpc/dt_cpu

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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a6654419-2438-7f8a-9094-c3decb53c54f@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:46:55 +0530
From:   Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Jordan Niethe <jniethe5@...il.com>
Cc:     mikey@...ling.org, apopple@...ux.ibm.com,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        jolsa@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
        mingo@...nel.org, pedromfc@...ibm.com, miltonm@...ibm.com,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/10] powerpc/dt_cpu_ftrs: Add feature for 2nd DAWR



On 7/21/20 7:37 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
>> On 7/21/20 4:59 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
>>>> On 7/17/20 11:14 AM, Jordan Niethe wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Ravi Bangoria
>>>>> <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Add new device-tree feature for 2nd DAWR. If this feature is present,
>>>>>> 2nd DAWR is supported, otherwise not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h | 7 +++++--
>>>>>>     arch/powerpc/kernel/dt_cpu_ftrs.c   | 7 +++++++
>>>>>>     2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h
>>>>>> index e506d429b1af..3445c86e1f6f 100644
>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h
>>>>>> @@ -214,6 +214,7 @@ static inline void cpu_feature_keys_init(void) { }
>>>>>>     #define CPU_FTR_P9_TLBIE_ERAT_BUG      LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0001000000000000)
>>>>>>     #define CPU_FTR_P9_RADIX_PREFETCH_BUG  LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0002000000000000)
>>>>>>     #define CPU_FTR_ARCH_31                        LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0004000000000000)
>>>>>> +#define CPU_FTR_DAWR1                  LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0008000000000000)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -497,14 +498,16 @@ static inline void cpu_feature_keys_init(void) { }
>>>>>>     #define CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE      \
>>>>>>                (CPU_FTRS_POWER7 | CPU_FTRS_POWER8E | CPU_FTRS_POWER8 | \
>>>>>>                 CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC_COMP | CPU_FTR_VSX_COMP | CPU_FTRS_POWER9 | \
>>>>>> -            CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_1 | CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_2 | CPU_FTRS_POWER10)
>>>>>> +            CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_1 | CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_2 | CPU_FTRS_POWER10 | \
>>>>>> +            CPU_FTR_DAWR1)
>>>>>>     #else
>>>>>>     #define CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE      \
>>>>>>                (CPU_FTRS_PPC970 | CPU_FTRS_POWER5 | \
>>>>>>                 CPU_FTRS_POWER6 | CPU_FTRS_POWER7 | CPU_FTRS_POWER8E | \
>>>>>>                 CPU_FTRS_POWER8 | CPU_FTRS_CELL | CPU_FTRS_PA6T | \
>>>>>>                 CPU_FTR_VSX_COMP | CPU_FTR_ALTIVEC_COMP | CPU_FTRS_POWER9 | \
>>>>>> -            CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_1 | CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_2 | CPU_FTRS_POWER10)
>>>>>> +            CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_1 | CPU_FTRS_POWER9_DD2_2 | CPU_FTRS_POWER10 | \
>>>>>> +            CPU_FTR_DAWR1)
>>>
>>>>> Instead of putting CPU_FTR_DAWR1 into CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE should it go
>>>>> into CPU_FTRS_POWER10?
>>>>> Then it will be picked up by CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE.
>>>>
>>>> I remember a discussion about this with Mikey and we decided to do it
>>>> this way. Obviously, the purpose is to make CPU_FTR_DAWR1 independent of
>>>> CPU_FTRS_POWER10 because DAWR1 is an optional feature in p10. I fear
>>>> including CPU_FTR_DAWR1 in CPU_FTRS_POWER10 can make it forcefully enabled
>>>> even when device-tree property is not present or pa-feature bit it not set,
>>>> because we do:
>>>>
>>>>          {       /* 3.1-compliant processor, i.e. Power10 "architected" mode */
>>>>                  .pvr_mask               = 0xffffffff,
>>>>                  .pvr_value              = 0x0f000006,
>>>>                  .cpu_name               = "POWER10 (architected)",
>>>>                  .cpu_features           = CPU_FTRS_POWER10,
>>>
>>> The pa-features logic will turn it off if the feature bit is not set.
>>>
>>> So you should be able to put it in CPU_FTRS_POWER10.
>>>
>>> See for example CPU_FTR_NOEXECUTE.
>>
>> Ah ok. scan_features() clears the feature if the bit is not set in
>> pa-features. So it should work find for powervm. I'll verify the same
>> thing happens in case of baremetal where we use cpu-features not
>> pa-features. If it works in baremetal as well, will put it in
>> CPU_FTRS_POWER10.
> 
> When we use DT CPU features we don't use CPU_FTRS_POWER10 at all.
> 
> We construct a cpu_spec from scratch with just the base set of features:
> 
> static struct cpu_spec __initdata base_cpu_spec = {
> 	.cpu_name		= NULL,
> 	.cpu_features		= CPU_FTRS_DT_CPU_BASE,
> 
> 
> And then individual features are enabled via the device tree flags.

Ah good. I was under a wrong impression that we use cpu_specs[] for all
the cases. Thanks mpe for explaining in detail :)

Ravi