Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
CC:     "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "bp@suse.de" <bp@suse.de>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86/smpboot: Don't do mwait_play_dead() on AMD systems
Thread-Topic: [PATCH] x86/smpboot: Don't do mwait_play_dead() on AMD systems
Thread-Index: AQHTyrFJKPMqgSsBDkysEhYXPXzBJKPu4YMAgAAvpBCAAAzzgIAAASwg
Date:   Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:47:46 +0000
Message-ID: <CY4PR12MB15574BF988D5E24957D27471F8A50@CY4PR12MB1557.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20180402183424.48222-1-Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
 <20180403110352.izr2kvsd3ys4drjq@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR12MB1557216A1882A4CFC43248D3F8A50@CY4PR12MB1557.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <20180403144043.23o5aijs4hlyj2dj@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180403144043.23o5aijs4hlyj2dj@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: amd.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c223b109-8076-448b-9c23-08d59971dd9a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Apr 2018 14:47:46.9950
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR12MB1621
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo.kernel.org@gmail.com> On Behalf Of Ingo Molnar
> Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 10:41 AM
> To: Ghannam, Yazen <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
> Cc: x86@kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; bp@suse.de
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/smpboot: Don't do mwait_play_dead() on AMD
> systems
>=20
>=20
> * Ghannam, Yazen <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com> wrote:
>=20
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ingo Molnar <mingo.kernel.org@gmail.com> On Behalf Of Ingo
> Molnar
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 7:04 AM
> > > To: Ghannam, Yazen <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
> > > Cc: x86@kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; bp@suse.de
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/smpboot: Don't do mwait_play_dead() on AMD
> > > systems
> > >
> > >
> > > * Yazen Ghannam <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>
> > > >
> > > > Recent AMD systems support using MWAIT for C1 state. However, MWAIT
> will
> > > > not allow deeper cstates than C1 on current systems.
> > > >
> > > > With play_dead() we expect the OS to use the deepest state availabl=
e.
> > > > The deepest state available on AMD systems is reached through Syste=
mIO
> > > > or HALT. If MWAIT is available, we use it instead of the other meth=
ods,
> > > > so we never reach the deepest state.
> > > >
> > > > Don't try to use MWAIT to play_dead() on AMD systems. Instead, we'l=
l use
> > > > CPUIDLE to enter the deepest state advertised by firmware. If CPUID=
LE is
> > > > not available then we fallback to HALT.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 3 +++
> > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> > > > index ff99e2b6fc54..67cf00b25f83 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> > > > @@ -1536,6 +1536,9 @@ static inline void mwait_play_dead(void)
> > > >  	void *mwait_ptr;
> > > >  	int i;
> > > >
> > > > +	/* Don't try native MWAIT on AMD. Stick to CPUIDLE and HALT. */
> > > > +	if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor =3D=3D X86_VENDOR_AMD)
> > > > +		return;
> > >
> > > The comment should mainly explain the 'why is this done', not the 'wh=
at is
> done'
> > > which is pretty obvious from the code ...
> > >
> >
> > Yes, I'll drop that comment since the commit message has the explanatio=
n.
>=20
> Or rather, explain the 'why' in the comment, because otherwise this is a =
pretty
> obscure condition that is not self-documenting?
>=20

Okay, how about this?

"MWAIT only provides shallow Cstates on AMD systems. Fallback to CPUIDLE an=
d
HALT to have access to deeper Cstates."

Thanks,
Yazen