[RFC PATCH v2 4/4] arm64: Export id_aar64fpr0 via sysfs
Qais Yousef
qais.yousef at arm.com
Mon Oct 26 15:18:26 EDT 2020
On 10/26/20 20:08, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 07:02:50PM +0000, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > On 10/22/20 15:55, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 02:47:52PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > > > On 10/21/20 15:41, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > > We already expose MIDR and REVIDR via the current sysfs interface. We
> > > > > > can expand it to include _all_ the other ID_* regs currently available
> > > > > > to user via the MRS emulation and we won't have to debate what a new
> > > > > > interface would look like. The MRS emulation and the sysfs info should
> > > > > > probably match, though that means we need to expose the
> > > > > > ID_AA64PFR0_EL1.EL0 field which we currently don't.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do agree that an AArch32 cpumask is an easier option both from the
> > > > > > kernel implementation perspective and from the application usability
> > > > > > one, though not as easy as automatic task placement by the scheduler (my
> > > > > > first preference, followed by the id_* regs and the aarch32 mask, though
> > > > > > not a strong preference for any).
> > > > >
> > > > > If a cpumask is easier to implement and easier to use, then I think that's
> > > > > what we should do. It's also then dead easy to disable if necessary by
> > > > > just returning 0. The only alternative I would prefer is not having to
> > > > > expose this information altogether, but I'm not sure that figuring this
> > > > > out from MIDR/REVIDR alone is reliable.
> > > >
> > > > So the mask idea is about adding a new
> > > >
> > > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/aarch32_cpus
> > > >
> > > > ?
> > >
> > > Is this a file, a directory, or what? What's the contents?
> > >
> > > Without any of that, I have no idea if it's "ok" or not...
> >
> > Hopefully the below patch explains better. Note that I added the new attribute
> > to driver/base/cpu.c, but assuming we will still want to go down this route, we
> > will need a generic way for archs to add their attributes to
> > /sys/devices/system/cpu/.
> >
> > Something like having a special define for archs to append their own
> > attributes list
> >
> > #define SYSFS_SYSTEM_CPU_ARCH_ATTRIBUTES
> >
> > Or probably there's a way to add this file (attribute) dynamically from arch
> > code that I just didn't figure out how to do yet.
>
> Please do that, sysfs files should not be present when the information
> is not needed from them. Look at the is_visible() callback for the
> attribute for how to do it.
Okay, thanks for the hint. Will look at that.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > --
> > Qais Yousef
> >
> >
> > ---------->8------------
> >
> > >From 96dfdfdacb2a26a60ba19051e8c72e839eb5408b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef at arm.com>
> > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 16:33:32 +0000
> > Subject: [PATCH] arm64: export aarch32_online mask in sysfs
> >
> > This patch to be applied on top of arm64 Asymmetric AArch32 support.
> >
> > It explores the option of exporting the AArch32 capable cpus as a mask
> > on sysfs.
> >
> > This is to help drive the discussion on the API before sending the next
> > version which I yet to address some of the review comments.
> >
> > The output looks like:
> >
> > # cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/aarch32_online
> > 0-5
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef at arm.com>
> > ---
> > Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu | 7 +++++++
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 2 ++
> > arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 8 ++++++++
> > drivers/base/cpu.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> > 4 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu
> > index b555df825447..9ccb5c3f5ee3 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu
> > +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu
> > @@ -36,6 +36,13 @@ Description: CPU topology files that describe kernel limits related to
> >
> > See Documentation/admin-guide/cputopology.rst for more information.
> >
> > +What: /sys/devices/system/cpu/aarch32_online
> > +Date: October 2020
> > +Contact: Linux ARM Kernel Mailing list <linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org>
> > +Description: CPU topology file that describes which cpus support AArch32 at
> > + EL0. Only available on arm64.
> > +
> > + The value is updated when a cpu becomes online then sticks.
>
> What does "then sticks" mean?
Was thinking like a sticky bit.
When a cpu becomes online and we discover that it is aarch32 capable, we set
the bit. But never clear it again if the cpu goes offline later.
I'll reword it.
>
>
> >
> > What: /sys/devices/system/cpu/probe
> > /sys/devices/system/cpu/release
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> > index 2b87f17b2bd4..edd18002ad81 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> > @@ -380,6 +380,8 @@ cpucap_multi_entry_cap_matches(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry,
> > return false;
> > }
> >
> > +extern cpumask_t aarch32_el0_mask;
> > +
> > extern DECLARE_BITMAP(cpu_hwcaps, ARM64_NCAPS);
> > extern struct static_key_false cpu_hwcap_keys[ARM64_NCAPS];
> > extern struct static_key_false arm64_const_caps_ready;
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > index 0f7307c8ad80..662bbc2b15cd 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > @@ -1723,6 +1723,13 @@ cpucap_panic_on_conflict(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *cap)
> > return !!(cap->type & ARM64_CPUCAP_PANIC_ON_CONFLICT);
> > }
> >
> > +cpumask_t aarch32_el0_mask;
> > +static void cpu_enable_aarch32_el0(struct arm64_cpu_capabilities const *cap)
> > +{
> > + if (has_cpuid_feature(cap, SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU))
> > + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &aarch32_el0_mask);
> > +}
> > +
> > static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_features[] = {
> > {
> > .desc = "GIC system register CPU interface",
> > @@ -1809,6 +1816,7 @@ static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_features[] = {
> > {
> > .capability = ARM64_HAS_ASYM_32BIT_EL0,
> > .type = ARM64_CPUCAP_WEAK_LOCAL_CPU_FEATURE,
> > + .cpu_enable = cpu_enable_aarch32_el0,
> > .matches = has_cpuid_feature,
> > .sys_reg = SYS_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1,
> > .sign = FTR_UNSIGNED,
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/cpu.c b/drivers/base/cpu.c
> > index d2136ab9b14a..569baacde508 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/cpu.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/cpu.c
> > @@ -459,6 +459,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpu_device_create);
> > static DEVICE_ATTR(modalias, 0444, print_cpu_modalias, NULL);
> > #endif
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
> > +static ssize_t print_aarch32_online(struct device *dev,
> > + struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> > +{
> > + return cpumap_print_to_pagebuf(true, buf, &aarch32_el0_mask);
> > +}
> > +static DEVICE_ATTR(aarch32_online, 0444, print_aarch32_online, NULL);
>
> DEVICE_ATTR_RO()?
Indeed.
>
> > +#endif
>
> Hah, no, no arch-specific stuff in here, sorry. Please do this properly
> in your arch-specific code only.
Of course. It was just to see this is okay. Let me figure out how to clean this
up.
Thanks!
--
Qais Yousef
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list