Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <0b501f18-a6b8-1d9b-e72a-ea6cb33720a2@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 May 2022 10:04:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] x86: Remove vendor checks from
 prefer_mwait_c1_over_halt
Content-Language: en-US
To:     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
References: <20220505104856.452311-1-wyes.karny@amd.com>
 <20220505110140.453184-1-wyes.karny@amd.com>
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220505110140.453184-1-wyes.karny@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 5/5/22 04:01, Wyes Karny wrote:
> -	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;
> +
> +	/* Monitor has a bug. Fallback to HALT */
> +	if (boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_MONITOR))
>  		return 0;
>  
> -	if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MWAIT) || boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_MONITOR))
> +	if (c->cpuid_level < CPUID_MWAIT_LEAF)
>  		return 0;

First of all, thanks for all the detail in this new version of the patches!

In arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c, we have:

cpuid_dependent_features[] = {
        { X86_FEATURE_MWAIT,            0x00000005 },
	...

Shouldn't that clear X86_FEATURE_MWAIT on all systems without
CPUID_MWAIT_LEAF?  That would make the c->cpuid_level check above
unnecessary.

> +	/*
> +	 * If ECX doesn't have extended info about MWAIT,
> +	 * don't need to check substates.
> +	 */
> +	if (!(ecx & CPUID5_ECX_EXTENSIONS_SUPPORTED))
> +		return 1;

Could you explain a bit more about this?  I don't know this CPUID leaf
off the top of my head and the line after this is checking EDX.  It's
not apparent from this comment why "!ECX_EXTENSIONS_SUPPORTED" means
that MWAIT should be preferred.

> +	/* Check, whether at least 1 MWAIT C1 substate is present */
> +	return (edx & MWAIT_C1_SUBSTATE_MASK);