Re: [PATCH] arm64: Add the arm64.nolse_atomics command line option
From: Aiqun(Maria) Yu
Date: Thu Jul 13 2023 - 10:09:00 EST
On 7/13/2023 7:20 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:24:24AM +0800, Aiqun(Maria) Yu wrote:
On 7/12/2023 3:36 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 11:09:10AM +0800, Aiqun(Maria) Yu wrote:
On 7/11/2023 6:25 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 06:15:49PM +0800, Aiqun(Maria) Yu wrote:
On 7/11/2023 4:22 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 12:02:22PM +0800, Aiqun(Maria) Yu wrote:
On 7/10/2023 5:37 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 01:59:55PM +0800, Maria Yu wrote:
In order to be able to disable lse_atomic even if cpu
support it, most likely because of memory controller
cannot deal with the lse atomic instructions, use a
new idreg override to deal with it.
This should not be a problem for cacheable memory though, right?
Given that Linux does not issue atomic operations to non-cacheable mappings,
I'm struggling to see why there's a problem here.
The lse atomic operation can be issued on non-cacheable mappings as well.
Even if it is cached data, with different CPUECTLR_EL1 setting, it can also
do far lse atomic operations.
Please can you point me to the place in the kernel sources where this
happens? The architecture doesn't guarantee that atomics to non-cacheable
mappings will work, see "B2.2.6 Possible implementation restrictions on
using atomic instructions". Linux, therefore, doesn't issue atomics
to non-cacheable memory.
We encounter the issue on third party kernel modules and third party apps
instead of linux kernel itself.
Great, so there's nothing to do in the kernel then!
The third party code needs to be modified not to use atomic instructions
with non-cacheable mappings. No need to involve us with that.
This is a tradeoff of performance and stability. Per my understanding,
options can be used to enable the lse_atomic to have the most performance
cared system, and disable the lse_atomic by stability cared most system.
Where do livelock and starvation fit in with "stability"? Disabling LSE
atomics for things like qspinlock and the scheduler just because of some
badly written third-party code isn't much of a tradeoff.
We also have requirement to have cpus/system fully support lse atomic and
cpus/system not fully support lse atomic with a generic kernel image.
Who *specifically* has this requirement (i.e. what does 'we' mean here)? The
I can use other word to describe the requirement instead of "we".
There is requirements like android google gki. It request different cpu arch
system to use same generic kernel Image.
GKI requires the system to use the generic kernel image; GKI does not require
supporting atomics to non-cacheable mappings.
GKI does not have to require atomics to non-cacheable mappings.
GKI requires LSE ATOMIC feature to be enabled by default.
And GKI requires runtime disable the current cpu lse atomic feature.
It was an old soc, We received stability issues and finally completely
disable lse atomic for the product when it is non-gki kernel.
What I am asking is: who has the requirement to perform atomics to
non-cacheable mappings?
upstream kernel does not require that atomics work on non-cacheable memory, and
The same issue the system can be down of lse atomic not supported for
cachable memory when there need far atomic.
Are you saying that LSE atomics to *cacheable* mappings do not work on your
system?
Specifically, when using a Normal Inner-Shareable Inner-Writeback
Outer-Writeback mapping, do the LSE atomics work or not work?
*cacheable* mapping have the LSE atomic is not working if far atomic is
performed.
saying "The company I work for want this" doesn't change that.
AFAICT the system here is architecturally compliant, and what you're relying
upon something that the architecture doesn't guarantee, and Linux doesn't
guarantee.
It is not also only our company's problem:
To support the atomic instructions added in the Armv8.1 architecture, CHI-B
provides Atomic Transactions. while Atomic Transactions support is also
*optional* from CHI-B.
So far atomic cannot fully supported by ARMv8.1 cpu + CHI-B system as well.
from:
https://developer.arm.com/documentation/102407/0100/Atomic-operations?lang=en
So only cpu support atomic cannot garantee the system support lse atomic
Same kernel module wanted to be used by lse atomic fully support cpu and not
fully support cpu/system as well.
Which kernel modules *specifically* need to do atomics to non-cacheable memory?
The driver want to always do far atomic(no speculatively) and allow a
read-modify-write non-interruptible sequence in a single instruction.
That doesn't answer my question (you haven't told me what "the driver" is).
The customers' third part drivers. Do you want to have the driver's
name? Or source code? The driver works well on current far atomic
supported systems.
Is it a reasonable action like this from your point of view like this?
The driver want to always do far atomic(no speculatively) and allow a
read-modify-write non-interruptible sequence in a single instruction?
There is also an example in below link that far atomic usage is allowed
and sometimes performs good than near atomic:
https://developer.arm.com/documentation/102407/0100/Atomic-operations?lang=en
That doesn't explain why you need to use non-cachable memory for this.
I want to correct that not "I need to", it is the end user/third party
driver want to do far atomics.
And my intention here is to give the options to let end user decide they
can disable the lse atomic from their end.
With disablement, the benefit is that they can keep the same code(kind
of GKI from customer end) for far atomic supported/not supported systems.
Thanks,
Mark.
--
Thx and BRs,
Aiqun(Maria) Yu