Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH 1/3] Introduce cpuid_on_cpu() and cpuid_eax_on_cpu()
| [PATCH 1/3] Introduce cpuid_on_cpu() and cpuid_eax_on_cpu() [message #11669] |
Mon, 02 April 2007 11:32  |
Alexey Dobriyan
Messages: 195
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
They will be used by cpuid driver and powernow-k8 cpufreq driver.
With these changes powernow-k8 driver could run correctly on OpenVZ kernels
with virtual cpus enabled (SCHED_VCPU).
Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@sw.ru>
---
arch/i386/lib/Makefile | 2 -
arch/i386/lib/cpuid-on-cpu.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
arch/x86_64/lib/Makefile | 2 -
arch/x86_64/lib/cpuid-on-cpu.c | 1
include/asm-i386/processor.h | 15 +++++++++
include/asm-x86_64/msr.h | 13 +++++++
6 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/arch/i386/lib/Makefile
+++ b/arch/i386/lib/Makefile
@@ -8,4 +8,4 @@ lib-y = checksum.o delay.o usercopy.o getuser.o putuser.o memcpy.o strstr.o \
lib-$(CONFIG_X86_USE_3DNOW) += mmx.o
-obj-$(CONFIG_SMP) += msr-on-cpu.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_SMP) += cpuid-on-cpu.o msr-on-cpu.o
--- a/arch/x86_64/lib/Makefile
+++ b/arch/x86_64/lib/Makefile
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
CFLAGS_csum-partial.o := -funroll-loops
obj-y := io.o iomap_copy.o
-obj-$(CONFIG_SMP) += msr-on-cpu.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_SMP) += cpuid-on-cpu.o msr-on-cpu.o
lib-y := csum-partial.o csum-copy.o csum-wrappers.o delay.o \
usercopy.o getuser.o putuser.o \
--- a/include/asm-i386/processor.h
+++ b/include/asm-i386/processor.h
@@ -643,6 +643,21 @@ static inline unsigned int cpuid_edx(unsigned int op)
return edx;
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+void cpuid_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 op, u32 *eax, u32 *ebx, u32 *ecx, u32 *edx);
+u32 cpuid_eax_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 op);
+#else
+static inline void cpuid_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 op, u32 *eax, u32 *ebx, u32 *ecx, u32 *edx)
+{
+ cpuid(op, eax, ebx, ecx, edx);
+}
+
+static inline u32 cpuid_eax_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 op)
+{
+ return cpuid_eax(op);
+}
+#endif
+
/* generic versions from gas */
#define GENERIC_NOP1 ".byte 0x90\n"
#define GENERIC_NOP2 ".byte 0x89,0xf6\n"
--- a/include/asm-x86_64/msr.h
+++ b/include/asm-x86_64/msr.h
@@ -163,6 +163,9 @@ static inline unsigned int cpuid_edx(unsigned int op)
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
void rdmsr_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 msr_no, u32 *l, u32 *h);
void wrmsr_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 msr_no, u32 l, u32 h);
+
+void cpuid_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 op, u32 *eax, u32 *ebx, u32 *ecx, u32 *edx);
+u32 cpuid_eax_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 op);
#else /* CONFIG_SMP */
static inline void rdmsr_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 msr_no, u32 *l, u32 *h)
{
@@ -172,6 +175,16 @@ static inline void wrmsr_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 msr_no, u32 l, u32 h)
{
wrmsr(msr_no, l, h);
}
+
+static inline void cpuid_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 op, u32 *eax, u32 *ebx, u32 *ecx, u32 *edx)
+{
+ cpuid(op, eax, ebx, ecx, edx);
+}
+
+static inline u32 cpuid_eax_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 op)
+{
+ return cpuid_eax(op);
+}
#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
#endif
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/i386/lib/cpuid-on-cpu.c
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+#include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/preempt.h>
+#include <linux/smp.h>
+#include <linux/types.h>
+
+struct cpuid_info {
+ u32 op;
+ u32 eax, ebx, ecx, edx;
+};
+
+static void __cpuid_on_cpu(void *info)
+{
+ struct cpuid_info *rv = info;
+
+ cpuid(rv->op, &rv->eax, &rv->ebx, &rv->ecx, &rv->edx);
+}
+
+void cpuid_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 op, u32 *eax, u32 *ebx, u32 *ecx, u32 *edx)
+{
+ preempt_disable();
+ if (smp_processor_id() == cpu)
+ cpuid(op, eax, ebx, ecx, edx);
+ else {
+ struct cpuid_info rv;
+
+ rv.op = op;
+ smp_call_function_single(cpu, __cpuid_on_cpu, &rv, 0, 1);
+ *eax = rv.eax;
+ *ebx = rv.ebx;
+ *ecx = rv.ecx;
+ *edx = rv.edx;
+ }
+ preempt_enable();
+}
+
+struct cpuid_eax_info {
+ u32 op;
+ u32 eax;
+};
+
+static void __cpuid_eax_on_cpu(void *info)
+{
+ struct cpuid_info *rv = info;
+
+ rv->eax = cpuid_eax(rv->op);
+}
+
+u32 cpuid_eax_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 op)
+{
+ u32 ret;
+
+ preempt_disable();
+ if (smp_processor_id() == cpu)
+ ret = cpuid_eax(op);
+ else {
+ struct cpuid_eax_info rv;
+
+ rv.op = op;
+ smp_call_function_single(cpu, __cpuid_eax_on_cpu, &rv, 0, 1);
+ ret = rv.eax;
+ }
+ preempt_enable();
+ return ret;
+}
+
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpuid_on_cpu);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpuid_eax_on_cpu);
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/x86_64/lib/cpuid-on-cpu.c
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+#include "../../i386/lib/cpuid-on-cpu.c"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [PATCH 1/3] Introduce cpuid_on_cpu() and cpuid_eax_on_cpu() [message #11704 is a reply to message #11672] |
Tue, 03 April 2007 13:33  |
Alexey Dobriyan
Messages: 195
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 02:10:29PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Monday 02 April 2007 13:38, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > They will be used by cpuid driver and powernow-k8 cpufreq driver.
> >
> > With these changes powernow-k8 driver could run correctly on OpenVZ kernels
> > with virtual cpus enabled (SCHED_VCPU).
>
> This means openvz has multiple virtual CPU levels?
Not sure what do you mean.
> One for cpuid/rdmsr and one for the rest of the kernel?
Now I think I do. No, only one VCPU level:
+---+ +---+ +---+
PCPU | 0 | | 1 | | 2 |
+---+ +---+ +---+
| \
| `---,
V \
VCPU +---+ +---+ +---+
| 0 | | 1 | | 2 |
+---+ +---+ +---+
PCPU chooses VCPU, chooses task from it's runqueue, or becomes idle.
> Both powernow-k8 and cpuid attempt to schedule
> to the target CPU so they should already run there. But it is some other CPU,
> but when they ask your _on_cpu() functions they suddenly get a "real" CPU?
> Where is the difference between these levels of virtualness?
*_on_cpu functions do some work on given physical CPU.
set_cpus_allowed() in openvz operates on VCPU level, so process doing
set_cpus_allowed() still could be scheduled anywhere. Which horribly
breaks cpufreq drivers. To unbreak them, we need a way to do frequency
changing work on given PCPU whose number comes from /sys/*/cpu/cpu*
hierarchy.
> That sounds quite fragile and will likely break often. I just rejected a similar
> concept -- virtual nodes and "physical nodes" for similar reasons.
Care to drop a link, so I could compare them? Don't recall something
like that posted on l-k.
> Also it has weird semantics. For example if you have multiple
> virtual CPUs mapping to a single CPU then would the powernow-k8 driver
> try to set the frequency multiple times on the same physical CPU?
If core cpufreq locking is OK, why would it?
> That might
> go wrong actually because the CPU might not be happy to be poked again
> while it is already in a frequency change. Also there is no locking
> so in theory two vcpus might try to change frequency in parallel with
> probably quite bad effects.
>
> I'm sure there are other scenarios with similar problems. e.g. what
> happens with microcode updates etc.?
apply_microcode() looks small enough to convert it to IPIs, but so far
nobody asked for microcode updates in openvz.
> Before adding any hacks like this I think your vcpu concept
> needs to be discussed properly on l-k. For me it doesn't look like it is
> something good right now though.
Andi, I think it all relies on correctness of core cpufreq locking. Core
cpufreq locking is not changed with these patches so number of bugs
should stay the same.
current way new way
----------- -------
set_cpus_allowed(cpu);
[frequency change part #1] [IPI part #1]
<=== nasty here ===>
[frequency change part #2] [IPI part #2]
set_cpus_allowed(old)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [PATCH 1/3] Introduce cpuid_on_cpu() and cpuid_eax_on_cpu() [message #11707 is a reply to message #11705] |
Tue, 03 April 2007 14:50 |
Alexey Dobriyan
Messages: 195
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 03:42:50PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Both powernow-k8 and cpuid attempt to schedule
> > > to the target CPU so they should already run there. But it is some other CPU,
> > > but when they ask your _on_cpu() functions they suddenly get a "real" CPU?
> > > Where is the difference between these levels of virtualness?
> >
> > *_on_cpu functions do some work on given physical CPU.
> > set_cpus_allowed() in openvz operates on VCPU level, so process doing
> > set_cpus_allowed() still could be scheduled anywhere.
>
> Ok so you have multple levels.
>
> > > Also it has weird semantics. For example if you have multiple
> > > virtual CPUs mapping to a single CPU then would the powernow-k8 driver
> > > try to set the frequency multiple times on the same physical CPU?
> >
> > If core cpufreq locking is OK, why would it?
>
> It won't know about multiple CPUs mapping to a single CPU.
>
> > apply_microcode() looks small enough to convert it to IPIs, but so far
> > nobody asked for microcode updates in openvz.
>
> Well if they try it they will probably have problems.
>
> > > Before adding any hacks like this I think your vcpu concept
> > > needs to be discussed properly on l-k. For me it doesn't look like it is
> > > something good right now though.
> >
> > Andi, I think it all relies on correctness of core cpufreq locking.
>
> I have my doubts it will cope with you changing all reasonable expected semantics
> under it.
Synchronization promitives work as expected. Otherwise openvz'd be buried in bugs
all over the map.
Core cpufreq has per-cpu array of rw-semaphores but the index of
semaphore one want to down comes from userspace not from number of CPU
process is executing virtual or physical.
Probably davej could say something.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Sep 17 13:35:44 GMT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.05137 seconds
|
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
