[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86cyclhjw0.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2025 15:51:59 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: Mikołaj Lenczewski <miko.lenczewski@....com>,
ryan.roberts@....com, suzuki.poulose@....com, yang@...amperecomputing.com,
corbet@....net, catalin.marinas@....com, jean-philippe@...aro.org,
robin.murphy@....com, joro@...tes.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
paulmck@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, joey.gouly@....com,
james.morse@....com, broonie@...nel.org, oliver.upton@...ux.dev,
baohua@...nel.org, david@...hat.com, ioworker0@...il.com, jgg@...pe.ca,
nicolinc@...dia.com, mshavit@...gle.com, jsnitsel@...hat.com,
smostafa@...gle.com, kevin.tian@...el.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v6 1/3] arm64: Add BBM Level 2 cpu feature
On Tue, 06 May 2025 15:25:09 +0100,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 03:35:14PM +0000, Mikołaj Lenczewski wrote:
> > The Break-Before-Make cpu feature supports multiple levels (levels 0-2),
> > and this commit adds a dedicated BBML2 cpufeature to test against
> > support for, as well as a kernel commandline parameter to optionally
> > disable BBML2 altogether.
> >
> > This is a system feature as we might have a big.LITTLE architecture
> > where some cores support BBML2 and some don't, but we want all cores to
> > be available and BBM to default to level 0 (as opposed to having cores
> > without BBML2 not coming online).
> >
> > To support BBML2 in as wide a range of contexts as we can, we want not
> > only the architectural guarantees that BBML2 makes, but additionally
> > want BBML2 to not create TLB conflict aborts. Not causing aborts avoids
> > us having to prove that no recursive faults can be induced in any path
> > that uses BBML2, allowing its use for arbitrary kernel mappings.
> > Support detection of such CPUs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mikołaj Lenczewski <miko.lenczewski@....com>
> > Reviewed-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
> > Reviewed-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
> > ---
> > .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 3 +
> > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 19 +++++
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h | 2 +
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 5 ++
> > arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++
> > arch/arm64/kernel/pi/idreg-override.c | 2 +
> > arch/arm64/tools/cpucaps | 1 +
> > 7 files changed, 103 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > index d9fd26b95b34..2749c67a4f07 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > @@ -449,6 +449,9 @@
> > arm64.no32bit_el0 [ARM64] Unconditionally disable the execution of
> > 32 bit applications.
> >
> > + arm64.nobbml2 [ARM64] Unconditionally disable Break-Before-Make Level
> > + 2 support
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure we really want this. It opens up the door for folks to
> pass 'id_aa64mmfr2.bbm=2' without updating the allow-list which feels
> like it's going to make crashes harder to reason about.
Passing id_aa64mmfr2.bbm=2 shouldn't have any effect if the HW doesn't
advertise it already, as you can only downgrade features. Trying to
upgrade features should leave a nastygram in the kernel log.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists