From: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>
To: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
Jie Zhan <zhanjie9@hisilicon.com>,
Lifeng Zheng <zhenglifeng1@huawei.com>,
Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>,
zhongqiu.han@oss.qualcomm.com, Sashiko <sashiko-bot@kernel.org>,
"linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 15/15] ACPI: CPPC: Clear Performance Limited without a stale read
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 19:29:51 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fd10b117-56c4-4a4d-be36-d083ad0fceae@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260826063019.670240-16-christian.loehle@arm.com>
On 26/08/26 12:00, Christian Loehle wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> The Performance Limited status bits are sticky and write-zero-to-clear.
> ACPI 6.6 Section 8.4.6.1.3.2 also requires both entities to use interlocked
> accesses.
>
> cppc_set_perf_limited() currently reads the register, computes a new value,
> and writes it in a separate transaction. If the platform reports another
> excursion between those transactions, the stale write can clear that new
> event.
>
> Write zero to the requested bits and one to the other defined status bits
> directly. Keep reserved bits zero as required for hardware status registers
> by ACPI 6.6 Section 4.6.1. This removes the stale read window.
>
> A partial SystemMemory field would still make the generic writer perform a
> read-modify-write to preserve the containing access unit. The
> per-descriptor spinlock cannot interlock that RMW with platform updates, so
> reject clears of such a field. Keep the descriptor mapped and readable,
> because reading the containing access unit once and extracting the field
> does not require RMW.
>
> Also reject another writable SystemMemory field sharing Performance
> Limited's access unit. Its RMW could similarly replay stale status bits,
> and an OSPM lock cannot serialize against the platform.
>
> Also reject 64-bit SystemMemory descriptions on 32-bit kernels, where
> generic readq()/writeq() may be split into two 32-bit operations and cannot
> provide the required portable interlocked access. A naturally aligned
> full-width QWord remains supported on 64-bit kernels, where the
> architecture provides a native 64-bit MMIO accessor.
>
> Performance Limited status is not required for CPPC control. If firmware
> describes it using an access which Linux cannot read safely, disable that
> status register instead of rejecting the processor's otherwise usable _CPC
> package. Report reads as unsupported rather than returning a synthetic
> zero, and emit a single warning for each nonfatal fallback.
>
> Fixes: 13c45a26635f ("ACPI: CPPC: add APIs and sysfs interface for perf_limited")
> Reported-by: Sashiko <sashiko-bot@kernel.org>
> Link: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260807111303.1062391-1-christian.loehle%40arm.com
> Signed-off-by: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>
> ---
Performance Limited is readable but not clear-able on my test platform,
with a warning on every CPU:
ACPI CPPC: CPU0: Performance Limited register cannot be cleared
safely; keeping it readable
This occurs with both _CPC revision 3 and revision 4.
Could clearing remain supported?
cppc_set_perf_limited() now builds the W0C value without reading the
register first. Here the field is 2 bits at Bit Offset 0 in a 32-bit
access unit. If Section 4.6.1 allows bits 31:2 to be treated as
reserved status bits, the value could be issued as a single 32-bit write
with those bits zero. That avoids RMW.
A full-width description already writes zero to the reserved bits.
Is the same treatment valid for bits outside the GAS Bit Width when
Bit Offset is zero?
Apart from this, cppc_cpufreq probes and basic frequency scaling work
on this platform.
Thanks,
Sumit
....
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-26 14:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-26 6:30 [PATCH v4 00/15] ACPI: CPPC: Fix register access and lifetime bugs Christian Loehle
2026-08-26 6:30 ` [PATCH v4 01/15] ACPI: CPPC: Validate the _CPC package header Christian Loehle
2026-08-26 6:30 ` [PATCH v4 02/15] ACPI: CPPC: Validate _CPC entry and control semantics Christian Loehle
2026-08-26 6:30 ` [PATCH v4 03/15] ACPI: CPPC: Propagate performance-control write errors Christian Loehle
2026-08-26 6:30 ` [PATCH v4 04/15] ACPI: CPPC: Use 64-bit masks for register fields Christian Loehle
2026-08-26 6:30 ` [PATCH v4 05/15] ACPI: CPPC: Serialize PCC single-register payload updates Christian Loehle
2026-08-26 6:30 ` [PATCH v4 06/15] ACPI: CPPC: Serialize PCC EPP " Christian Loehle
2026-08-26 6:30 ` [PATCH v4 07/15] ACPI: CPPC: Release CPC descriptors through kobject Christian Loehle
2026-08-26 6:30 ` [PATCH v4 08/15] ACPI: CPPC: Release PCC data after probe failures Christian Loehle
2026-08-26 6:30 ` [PATCH v4 09/15] ACPI: CPPC: Reject unsafe cross-CPU SystemMemory RMW Christian Loehle
2026-08-26 6:30 ` [PATCH v4 10/15] ACPI: CPPC: Reject direct reads of write-only controls Christian Loehle
2026-08-26 6:30 ` [PATCH v4 11/15] ACPI: CPPC: Validate and access PCC register layouts Christian Loehle
2026-08-26 6:30 ` [PATCH v4 12/15] ACPI: CPPC: Validate SystemIO " Christian Loehle
2026-08-26 6:30 ` [PATCH v4 13/15] ACPI: CPPC: Validate PCC overlaps across processors Christian Loehle
2026-08-26 6:30 ` [PATCH v4 14/15] ACPI: CPPC: Validate SystemIO " Christian Loehle
2026-08-26 6:30 ` [PATCH v4 15/15] ACPI: CPPC: Clear Performance Limited without a stale read Christian Loehle
2026-08-26 13:59 ` Sumit Gupta [this message]
2026-08-26 14:49 ` Christian Loehle
2026-08-26 14:17 ` [PATCH v4 00/15] ACPI: CPPC: Fix register access and lifetime bugs Sumit Gupta
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=fd10b117-56c4-4a4d-be36-d083ad0fceae@nvidia.com \
--to=sumitg@nvidia.com \
--cc=christian.loehle@arm.com \
--cc=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pierre.gondois@arm.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=zhanjie9@hisilicon.com \
--cc=zhenglifeng1@huawei.com \
--cc=zhongqiu.han@oss.qualcomm.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®