[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ecbe3d3-71f0-47e9-8fad-35b16689d1fa@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2025 09:46:33 +0800
From: Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: APEI: GHES: Improve ghes_notify_nmi() status check
在 2025/11/4 07:05, Tony Luck 写道:
> ghes_notify_nmi() is called for every NMI and must check whether the NMI was
> generated because an error was signalled by platform firmware.
>
> This check is very expensive as for each registered GHES NMI source it reads
> from the acpi generic address attached to this error source to get the physical
> address of the acpi_hest_generic_status block. It then checks the "block_status"
> to see if an error was logged.
>
> The ACPI/APEI code must create virtual mappings for each of those physical
> addresses, and tear them down afterwards. On an Icelake system this takes around
> 15,000 TSC cycles. Enough to disturb efforts to profile system performance.
Hi, Tony
Interesting.
If I understand correctly, you mean ghes_peek_estatus() and
ghes_clear_estatus().
I conducted performance testing on our system (ARM v8) and found the
following average costs:
- ghes_peek_estatus(): 8,138.3 ns (21,160 cycles)
- ghes_clear_estatus(): 2,038.3 ns (5,300 cycles)
>
> If that were not bad enough, there are some atomic accesses in the code path
> that will cause cache line bounces between CPUs. A problem that gets worse as
> the core count increases.
Could you elaborate on which specific atomic accesses you're referring to?
>
> But BIOS changes neither the acpi generic address nor the physical address of
> the acpi_hest_generic_status block. So this walk can be done once when the NMI is
> registered to save the virtual address (unmapping if the NMI is ever unregistered).
> The "block_status" can be checked directly in the NMI handler. This can be done
> without any atomic accesses.
>
> Resulting time to check that there is not an error record is around 900 cycles.
>
> Reported-by: Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
>
> ---
> N.B. I only talked to an Intel BIOS expert about this. GHES code is shared by
> other architectures, so it would be wise to get confirmation on whether this
> assumption applies to all, or is Intel (or X86) specific.
The assumption is "BIOS changes neither the acpi generic address nor the
physical address of the acpi_hest_generic_status block."?
I've consulted with our BIOS experts from both ARM and RISC-V platform
teams, and they confirmed that error status blocks are reserved at boot
time and remain unchanged during runtime.
> ---
> include/acpi/ghes.h | 1 +
> drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/acpi/ghes.h b/include/acpi/ghes.h
> index ebd21b05fe6e..58655d313a1f 100644
> --- a/include/acpi/ghes.h
> +++ b/include/acpi/ghes.h
> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ struct ghes {
> };
> struct device *dev;
> struct list_head elist;
> + void __iomem *error_status_vaddr;
> };
>
> struct ghes_estatus_node {
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
> index 97ee19f2cae0..62713b612865 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
> @@ -1425,7 +1425,21 @@ static LIST_HEAD(ghes_nmi);
> static int ghes_notify_nmi(unsigned int cmd, struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(ghes_notify_lock_nmi);
> + bool active_error = false;
> int ret = NMI_DONE;
> + struct ghes *ghes;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(ghes, &ghes_nmi, list) {
> + if (ghes->error_status_vaddr && readl(ghes->error_status_vaddr)) {
> + active_error = true;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> + if (!active_error)
> + return ret;
Shoud we put active_error into struct ghes? If we know it is active, we
do not need to call __ghes_peek_estatus() to estatus->block_status().
Thanks.
Shuai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists