Re: [PATCH 3/4] mwait-idle: add 'preferred_cstates' module argument

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 05:25:35PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 27.04.2022 17:06, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 03:41:24PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 27.04.2022 14:45, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:05:28PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>> --- unstable.orig/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mwait-idle.c
> >>>> +++ unstable/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mwait-idle.c
> >>>> @@ -82,6 +82,18 @@ boolean_param("mwait-idle", opt_mwait_id
> >>>>  
> >>>>  static unsigned int mwait_substates;
> >>>>  
> >>>> +/*
> >>>> + * Some platforms come with mutually exclusive C-states, so that if one 
> >>>> is
> >>>> + * enabled, the other C-states must not be used. Example: C1 and C1E on
> >>>> + * Sapphire Rapids platform. This parameter allows for selecting the
> >>>> + * preferred C-states among the groups of mutually exclusive C-states - 
> >>>> the
> >>>> + * selected C-states will be registered, the other C-states from the 
> >>>> mutually
> >>>> + * exclusive group won't be registered. If the platform has no mutually
> >>>> + * exclusive C-states, this parameter has no effect.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> +static unsigned int __ro_after_init preferred_states_mask;
> >>>> +integer_param("preferred-cstates", preferred_states_mask);
> >>>> +
> >>>>  #define LAPIC_TIMER_ALWAYS_RELIABLE 0xFFFFFFFF
> >>>>  /* Reliable LAPIC Timer States, bit 1 for C1 etc. Default to only C1. */
> >>>>  static unsigned int lapic_timer_reliable_states = (1 << 1);
> >>>> @@ -96,6 +108,7 @@ struct idle_cpu {
> >>>>          unsigned long auto_demotion_disable_flags;
> >>>>          bool byt_auto_demotion_disable_flag;
> >>>>          bool disable_promotion_to_c1e;
> >>>> +        bool enable_promotion_to_c1e;
> >>>
> >>> I'm confused by those fields, shouldn't we just have:
> >>> promotion_to_c1e = true | false?
> >>>
> >>> As one field is the negation of the other:
> >>> enable_promotion_to_c1e = !disable_promotion_to_c1e
> >>>
> >>> I know this is code from Linux, but would like to understand why two
> >>> fields are needed.
> >>
> >> This really is a tristate; Linux is now changing their global variable
> >> to an enum, but we don't have an equivalent of that global variable.
> > 
> > So it would be: leave default, disable C1E promotion, enable C1E
> > promotion.
> > 
> > And Linux is leaving the {disable,enable}_promotion_to_c1e in
> > idle_cpu?
> 
> Iirc they only have disable_promotion_to_c1e there (as a struct field)
> and keep it, but they convert the similarly named file-scope variable
> to a tristate.
> 
> > I guess there's not much we can do unless we want to diverge from
> > upstream.
> 
> We've diverged some from Linux here already - as said, for example we
> don't have their file-scope variable. I could convert our struct field
> to an enum, but that would be larger code churn for (I think) little
> gain.

Hm, OK, could gaining the file scope variable would make sense in order
to reduce divergences?  Or are the other roadblocks there?

I think this is ugly, but would make sense as long as it allows us to
keep closer to upstream.

Thanks, Roger.