[RFC PATCH] powerpc/powernv: Provide a way to force a core into SMT4 mode

[Nicholas Piggin]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 13:45:46 +1100
Paul Mackerras <paulus at ozlabs.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:27:35AM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:05:12 +1100
> > Paul Mackerras <paulus at ozlabs.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > POWER9 processors up to and including "Nimbus" v2.2 have hardware
> > > bugs relating to transactional memory and thread reconfiguration.
> > > One of these bugs has a workaround which is to get the core into
> > > SMT4 state temporarily.  This workaround is only needed when
> > > running bare-metal.  
> > 
> > How often will this be triggered, in practice? If it's infrequent,
> > then would it be better to just do a smp_call_function on siblings
> > and get them all spinning there? I'm looking sadly at the added
> > sync...  
> 
> We'll need to do this every time we exit a guest vcpu and the CPU is
> in "fake suspend" state, which will be the next exit after entering
> the vcpu when its MSR[TS] = 0b01 (suspend state).  If the vcpu does a
> tresume or treclaim in fake suspend state, that causes a softpatch
> interrupt; the CPU doesn't get out of fake suspend state because of
> any guest instruction, only via hypervisor action.
> 
> So it could be very rare or it could be quite frequent, depending on
> how much usage the guest makes of TM and how long it spends in suspend
> state.
> 
> The smp_call_function on siblings wouldn't work in the case where some
> threads are off-line, since it only works on online CPUs.  Also we
> would need to spin in the function being called on the other CPUs
> (otherwise you could get the situation where they wake up serially and
> you never have 3 or 4 threads simultaneously active), which would make
> me worry about deadlocks in the case where multiple threads are
> concurrently trying to get the core into SMT4 mode.
> 
> If you can think of a way to eliminate the sync without introducing a
> race, I'm all ears.  I haven't been able to.

Okay thanks for the details, yes it would have to be more complex than
a NULL function, I didn't realize offline CPUs would have to be involved.
I'll have a think about it.

A sync is about 1% of the stop/wake overhead, e.g., measured on P9 here
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/839017/

So it's not a showstopper. The approach seems like it should work AFAIKS.

Thanks,
Nick