Message ID | 20230410081438.1750-1-xin3.li@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | x86: enable FRED for x86-64 | expand |
On 4/10/23 01:14, Xin Li wrote:
> This patch set enables FRED for x86-64.
I'm worried we're just in a patchbomb-once-a-week mode with FRED at this
point. There wasn't a single comment on v7 so, of course, here's v8 a
week later.
FRED is a rare CPU feature because it's universally wanted. Us software
folks have been begging for it for a looooooooong time. Is there anyone
out there that has any doubts that the kernel will support (this) FRED
eventually?
The code also looks pretty reasonable.
I do think it's missing some Documentation, and the cover letter is bit
sparse. It would be nice to see some high-level information about
things like, for instance, why there needs to be FRED refactoring for
NMI/#PF/#DB/#MC specifically, but not other exceptions.
There also aren't any new selftests. I faintly recall some tweak to the
selftests recently that was FRED-oriented, but I'd still expect all the
selftests that poke at the entry code to be perturbed by this a bit.
Basically, if anyone else has been procrastinating on reviewing this
set, now is probably the time to dig in. (I'll include myself in that
category, btw)
Oh, and one other nit. We do have a specific maintainer for the entry code: > X86 ENTRY CODE > M: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> > L: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > S: Maintained > T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git x86/asm > F: arch/x86/entry/ Please make sure to cc Andy on FRED going forward. This is probably also a good cue to go and make sure you didn't miss any other folks that need to see this series.
> I do think it's missing some Documentation, and the cover letter is bit sparse. It > would be nice to see some high-level information about things like, for instance, > why there needs to be FRED refactoring for NMI/#PF/#DB/#MC specifically, but > not other exceptions. We do have some comments in the commit messages or around the code changes. However a high level document in the Documentation/x86/ directory probably works better, I can do that. > > There also aren't any new selftests. I faintly recall some tweak to the selftests > recently that was FRED-oriented, but I'd still expect all the selftests that poke at > the entry code to be perturbed by this a bit. Because FRED code majorly replaces the IDT entry/dispatch/return code, and makes few changes to the event handlers, our focus was more of to check if all the event handlers are properly called and returned, which is very well covered by the existing IDT selftests. One area we need to add selftests to is the FRED event dispatch framework, to make sure we cover all the possible dispatch paths. > Basically, if anyone else has been procrastinating on reviewing this set, now is > probably the time to dig in. (I'll include myself in that category, btw) I really appreciate it! Thanks! Xin
> Oh, and one other nit. We do have a specific maintainer for the entry code: > > > X86 ENTRY CODE > > M: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> > > L: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > S: Maintained > > T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git x86/asm > > F: arch/x86/entry/ > > Please make sure to cc Andy on FRED going forward. > > This is probably also a good cue to go and make sure you didn't miss any other > folks that need to see this series. My bad, and surely will add Andy.
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 07:14:21PM +0000, Li, Xin3 wrote: > > Basically, if anyone else has been procrastinating on reviewing this set, now is > > probably the time to dig in. (I'll include myself in that category, btw) > > I really appreciate it! That doesn't mean that you should patch-bomb people once a week even without any review happening. Is FRED in any hardware incarnation to rush it? If no, be patient, address the review comments once you have them and do not spam once a week just because. As Dave said, this is wanted by all and it will get reviewed eventually. But it is not something that needs to go in now so you don't have to create unnecessary pressure. Thx.
On 4/10/23 12:32, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 07:14:21PM +0000, Li, Xin3 wrote: >>> Basically, if anyone else has been procrastinating on reviewing this set, now is >>> probably the time to dig in. (I'll include myself in that category, btw) >> I really appreciate it! > That doesn't mean that you should patch-bomb people once a week even > without any review happening. > > Is FRED in any hardware incarnation to rush it? Which reminds me... It is always appreciated when hardware vendors can put a stake in the ground about where and how a feature will show up. It's great that you said that it is SIMICS-only for now. That's a start. But, if you could, for instance say things like (and I'm totally pulling these out of my rear end): FRED will be available only on server CPUs or FRED will be available across all Intel CPUs or FRED will start showing up in CPUs that are released in roughly 2033 it would be nice to know that. Here's what I said for protection keys, for example: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20160212210152.9CAD15B0@viggo.jf.intel.com/
> > Is FRED in any hardware incarnation to rush it? > > Which reminds me... It is always appreciated when hardware vendors can put a > stake in the ground about where and how a feature will show up. > It's great that you said that it is SIMICS-only for now. That's a start. > > But, if you could, for instance say things like (and I'm totally pulling these out of > my rear end): > > FRED will be available only on server CPUs or > FRED will be available across all Intel CPUs or > FRED will start showing up in CPUs that are released > in roughly 2033 > > it would be nice to know that. > > Here's what I said for protection keys, for example: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20160212210152.9CAD15B0@viggo.jf.intel.com/ Good point, I will find out what I could provide in LKML and update later. Thanks! Xin
> Is FRED in any hardware incarnation to rush it? Current plan is to have FRED HW available in Intel developer Cloud in 1H'2024. As the cover letter mentioned, for now, it's available through Intel Simics https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/tool/simics-simulator.html , and a developer has to install it on a dev machine. FRED will also be available publicly through a Simics cloud service in Q2'23, in which a Simics instance is created for development/QA use. FRED is a baseline feature, and there are some HW features on top of it. Some of the new features might be launched with the first FRED HW. In addition, the KVM FRED patch set is on top of this patch set. > If no, be patient, address the review comments once you have them and do not > spam once a week just because. As Dave said, this is wanted by all and it will get > reviewed eventually. But it is not something that needs to go in now so you don't > have to create unnecessary pressure. It wasn't my intension to patch-bomb the list. But I will pay attention regarding this concern. Thanks! Xin
On Mon, Apr 10 2023 at 19:16, Li, Xin3 wrote: >> Oh, and one other nit. We do have a specific maintainer for the entry code: >> >> > X86 ENTRY CODE >> > M: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> >> > L: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> > S: Maintained >> > T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git x86/asm >> > F: arch/x86/entry/ >> >> Please make sure to cc Andy on FRED going forward. >> >> This is probably also a good cue to go and make sure you didn't miss any other >> folks that need to see this series. > > My bad, and surely will add Andy. He's on CC indirectly via the x86@kernel.org mail exploder.
So I feel obliged to throw in some defending of Xin here, mostly because in some of these cases I'm the perkeleen vittupää[1] and not Xin. The other thing is that this patchset is from April and predates the recent FRED changes (which were unanticipated at the time); I explicitly asked Xin to hold off making updates until the spec had restabilized. -hpa [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/13/132
On Mon, Jun 05 2023 at 10:22, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > So I feel obliged to throw in some defending of Xin here, mostly because > in some of these cases I'm the perkeleen vittupää[1] and not Xin. That's clear from the authorship and the style of the patches and not all was criticism was directed at Xin obviously. He's just the messenger in that case. Thanks, tglx