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
next prev 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