mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Wyes Karny <wyes.karny@amd.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Lewis.Carroll@amd.com, Mario.Limonciello@amd.com,
	gautham.shenoy@amd.com, Ananth.Narayan@amd.com, bharata@amd.com,
	len.brown@intel.com, x86@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
	hpa@zytor.com, peterz@infradead.org, chang.seok.bae@intel.com,
	keescook@chromium.org, metze@samba.org,
	zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, puwen@hygon.cn,
	rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com,
	jing2.liu@intel.com, jmattson@google.com,
	pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] x86: Remove vendor checks from prefer_mwait_c1_over_halt
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 21:43:59 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <410f36ccecb36644e196d71fef6e46bdc186b409.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b1c9fd6c-9f00-9662-d590-b52ce26d0aca@intel.com>

On Thu, 2022-05-19 at 09:00 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/10/22 03:18, Wyes Karny wrote:
> >  static int prefer_mwait_c1_over_halt(const struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> >  {
> > +	u32 eax, ebx, ecx, edx;
> > +
> >  	/* User has disallowed the use of MWAIT. Fallback to HALT */
> >  	if (boot_option_idle_override == IDLE_NOMWAIT)
> >  		return 0;
> >  
> > -	if (c->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
> > +	/* MWAIT is not supported on this platform. Fallback to HALT */
> > +	if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MWAIT))
> >  		return 0;

I'm new to x86 code, a dumb question, what about the other vendors?
with this patch, prefer_mwait_c1_over_halt() can return 1 for other
vendors as well?

> >  
> > -	if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MWAIT) ||
> > boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_MONITOR))
> > +	/* Monitor has a bug. Fallback to HALT */
> > +	if (boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_MONITOR))
> >  		return 0;
> 
> So, before, we pretty much just assume that all Intel CPUs with MWAIT
> should use MWAIT C1.
> 
> > -	return 1;
> > +	cpuid(CPUID_MWAIT_LEAF, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If MWAIT extensions are not available, it is safe to use
> > MWAIT
> > +	 * with EAX=0, ECX=0.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (!(ecx & CPUID5_ECX_EXTENSIONS_SUPPORTED))
> > +		return 1;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If MWAIT extensions are available, there should be least one
> > +	 * MWAIT C1 substate present.
> > +	 */
> > +	return (edx & MWAIT_C1_SUBSTATE_MASK);
> >  }
> 
> So, I guess the "If MWAIT extensions are not available" check is
> consistent with the "always use it on Intel" behavior.
> 
> But, this would change the behavior on Intel systems that both have
> CPUID5_ECX_EXTENSIONS_SUPPORTED and do not set bits in
> MWAIT_C1_SUBSTATE_MASK.
> 
> Is that a problem or an improvement?

At least Intel processors since Nehalem have MWAIT C1 support.
For elder ones, need to confirm with Len.

When no bits set in MWAIT_C1_SUBSTATE_MASK, it means MWAIT C1 is not
available for some reason, let me check if I can make this happen or
not in real life.

thanks,
rui


  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-05-20 13:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-05-10 10:18 [PATCH v3 0/3] x86: Prefer MWAIT over HLT on AMD processors Wyes Karny
2022-05-10 10:18 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] x86: Use HLT in default_idle when idle=nomwait cmdline arg is passed Wyes Karny
2022-05-20 15:38   ` Zhang Rui
2022-05-23  5:02     ` Wyes Karny
2022-05-10 10:18 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] x86: Remove vendor checks from prefer_mwait_c1_over_halt Wyes Karny
2022-05-19 16:00   ` Dave Hansen
2022-05-20 11:27     ` Wyes Karny
2022-05-20 13:43     ` Zhang Rui [this message]
2022-05-20 15:46       ` Zhang Rui
2022-05-23 15:49       ` Wyes Karny
2022-05-25  7:20         ` Zhang Rui
2022-05-10 10:18 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] x86: Fix comment for X86_FEATURE_ZEN Wyes Karny
2022-05-19 10:13 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] x86: Prefer MWAIT over HLT on AMD processors Wyes Karny

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=410f36ccecb36644e196d71fef6e46bdc186b409.camel@intel.com \
    --to=rui.zhang@intel.com \
    --cc=Ananth.Narayan@amd.com \
    --cc=Lewis.Carroll@amd.com \
    --cc=Mario.Limonciello@amd.com \
    --cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
    --cc=bharata@amd.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=chang.seok.bae@intel.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jing2.liu@intel.com \
    --cc=jmattson@google.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=len.brown@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=metze@samba.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=puwen@hygon.cn \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=wyes.karny@amd.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com \
    /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

Powered by JetHome