From: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
H Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>, Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] x86/umwait: Add sysfs interface to control umwait C0.2 state
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 19:32:22 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190618023222.GI217081@romley-ivt3.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrUqPC5wzg9vUUHuUCYv-FeJdxPbe2t2F4_-9jauijeT1Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 05:19:02PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 5:09 PM Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com> wrote:
> But you're already using a mutex and a comment. And you're hoping
> that the syscore resume callback reads something sensible despite the
> lack of READ_ONCE / WRITE_ONCE. The compiler is unlikely to butcher
> this too badly, but still.
You are right, syscore_resume will be wrong if suspend in middle of
sysfs writing.
Ok. I change this patch based on your proposed locking. Is this patch
right? Should I use WRITE_ONCE/READ_ONCE on each access of
umwait_control_cached?
Thanks.
-Fenghua
diff --git a/arch/x86/power/umwait.c b/arch/x86/power/umwait.c
index 9594af9f657e..d17572605c1a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/power/umwait.c
+++ b/arch/x86/power/umwait.c
@@ -11,10 +11,34 @@
*/
static u32 umwait_control_cached = 100000 & ~MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL_C02_DISABLED;
+/*
+ * Serialize access to umwait_control_cached and IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL MSR
+ * in writing sysfs to ensure all CPUs have the same MSR value.
+ */
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(umwait_lock);
+
+static void update_this_cpu_umwait_control_msr(void)
+{
+ unsigned long flags;
+
+ /*
+ * We need to prevent umwait_control_cached from being changed *and*
+ * completing its WRMSR between our read and our WRMSR. By turning
+ * IRQs off here, ensure that no sysfs write happens on this CPU
+ * and we also make sure that any concurrent sysfs write from a
+ * different CPU will not finish updating us via IPI until we're done.
+ */
+ local_irq_save(flags);
+
+ wrmsr(MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL, READ_ONCE(umwait_control_cached), 0);
+
+ local_irq_restore(flags);
+}
+
/* Set up IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL MSR on CPU using the current global setting. */
static int umwait_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu)
{
- wrmsr(MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL, umwait_control_cached, 0);
+ update_this_cpu_umwait_control_msr();
return 0;
}
@@ -30,24 +54,102 @@ static int umwait_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu)
*/
static void umwait_syscore_resume(void)
{
- wrmsr(MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL, umwait_control_cached, 0);
+ update_this_cpu_umwait_control_msr();
}
static struct syscore_ops umwait_syscore_ops = {
.resume = umwait_syscore_resume,
};
+static void umwait_control_msr_update(void *unused)
+{
+ update_this_cpu_umwait_control_msr();
+}
+
+static u32 get_umwait_control_c02(void)
+{
+ return READ_ONCE(umwait_control_cached) & MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL_C02_DISABLED;
+}
+
+static u32 get_umwait_control_max_time(void)
+{
+ return READ_ONCE(umwait_control_cached) & MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL_MAX_TIME;
+}
+
+static ssize_t
+enable_c02_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
+{
+ /*
+ * When bit 0 in IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL MSR is 1, C0.2 is disabled.
+ * Otherwise, C0.2 is enabled. Show the opposite of bit 0.
+ */
+ return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", !(bool)get_umwait_control_c02());
+}
+
+static ssize_t enable_c02_store(struct device *dev,
+ struct device_attribute *attr,
+ const char *buf, size_t count)
+{
+ u32 umwait_control_c02;
+ bool c02_enabled;
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = kstrtobool(buf, &c02_enabled);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ mutex_lock(&umwait_lock);
+
+ /*
+ * The value of bit 0 in IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL MSR is opposite of
+ * c02_enabled.
+ */
+ umwait_control_c02 = (u32)!c02_enabled;
+ if (umwait_control_c02 == get_umwait_control_c02())
+ goto out_unlock;
+
+ WRITE_ONCE(umwait_control_cached, umwait_control_c02 | get_umwait_control_max_time());
+ /* Enable/disable C0.2 state on all CPUs */
+ on_each_cpu(umwait_control_msr_update, NULL, 1);
+
+out_unlock:
+ mutex_unlock(&umwait_lock);
+
+ return count;
+}
+static DEVICE_ATTR_RW(enable_c02);
+
+static struct attribute *umwait_attrs[] = {
+ &dev_attr_enable_c02.attr,
+ NULL
+};
+
+static struct attribute_group umwait_attr_group = {
+ .attrs = umwait_attrs,
+ .name = "umwait_control",
+};
+
static int __init umwait_init(void)
{
+ struct device *dev;
int ret;
if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_WAITPKG))
return -ENODEV;
+ /* Add umwait control interface. */
+ dev = cpu_subsys.dev_root;
+ ret = sysfs_create_group(&dev->kobj, &umwait_attr_group);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
ret = cpuhp_setup_state(CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN, "umwait/intel:online",
umwait_cpu_online, NULL);
- if (ret < 0)
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ sysfs_remove_group(&dev->kobj, &umwait_attr_group);
+
return ret;
+ }
register_syscore_ops(&umwait_syscore_ops);
--
2.19.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-18 2:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-07 22:00 [PATCH v4 0/5] x86/umwait: Enable user wait instructions Fenghua Yu
2019-06-07 22:00 ` [PATCH v4 1/5] x86/cpufeatures: Enumerate " Fenghua Yu
2019-06-07 22:00 ` [PATCH v4 2/5] x86/umwait: Initialize umwait control values Fenghua Yu
2019-06-08 22:52 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-10 4:13 ` Fenghua Yu
2019-06-10 4:27 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-11 20:46 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-06-17 20:46 ` Fenghua Yu
2019-06-18 5:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-06-11 8:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-11 17:04 ` Fenghua Yu
2019-06-07 22:00 ` [PATCH v4 3/5] x86/umwait: Add sysfs interface to control umwait C0.2 state Fenghua Yu
2019-06-08 22:50 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-10 3:53 ` Fenghua Yu
2019-06-10 4:24 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-10 6:02 ` Fenghua Yu
2019-06-10 13:41 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-17 20:27 ` Fenghua Yu
2019-06-17 23:02 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-17 23:11 ` Fenghua Yu
2019-06-17 23:41 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-18 0:00 ` Fenghua Yu
2019-06-18 0:19 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-18 2:32 ` Fenghua Yu [this message]
2019-06-08 22:52 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-10 4:04 ` Fenghua Yu
2019-06-10 4:26 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-17 22:48 ` Fenghua Yu
2019-06-17 22:59 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-17 22:51 ` Fenghua Yu
2019-06-11 8:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-11 16:04 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-11 17:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-17 15:14 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-17 18:11 ` Fenghua Yu
2019-06-07 22:00 ` [PATCH v4 4/5] x86/umwait: Add sysfs interface to control umwait maximum time Fenghua Yu
2019-06-07 22:00 ` [PATCH v4 5/5] x86/umwait: Document umwait control sysfs interfaces Fenghua Yu
2019-06-11 9:01 ` [PATCH v4 0/5] x86/umwait: Enable user wait instructions Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-11 17:37 ` Fenghua Yu
2019-06-17 14:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190618023222.GI217081@romley-ivt3.sc.intel.com \
--to=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=ravi.v.shankar@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®