On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 22:08:39 -0700 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:22 PM Vikram Sethi <vsethi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> > > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 3:56 PM Vikram Sethi <vsethi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > [..] > > > > > * Replace all instances of "Initiator" with "Initiator / Port" in "Table > > > > > 5.59 Flags - Generic Initiator Affinity Structure", including the > > > > > table name. > > > > > > > > I wanted to discuss the implications of a CXL host bridge implementation that > > > > does not set the "Architectural Transactions" bit/flag in the aforementioned > > > > Flags in Table 5.59. > > > > > > > > Since the kernel would be expecting all "System RAM" to have equivalent > > > > Functional properties, if HDM cannot have all the same functionality, then in > > > > the absence of ISA specific ACPI tables clarifying what architectural feature isn't > > > > supported, the kernel may be forced to not online the HDM memory as system > > > > RAM. If there is more granular expression of what features are lacking in a ISA > > > > Specific table (eg Memory Tagging/Memory Protection keys not supported), > > > > the kernel could choose to not enable that feature in all of system RAM (if > > > > discrepancy discovered at boot), but still online the HDM as System RAM. > > > > > > > > To that end, it may be useful to clarify this to host vendors by way of an > > > > Implementation note (ideally in the CXL specification). Something like: > > > > "CXL hosts are encouraged to support all architectural features in HDM > > > > as they do in CPU attached memory to avoid either the memory from > > > > being onlined as System RAM, or the architectural feature being disabled. > > > > Hosts must indicate architectural parity for HDM in ACPI SRAT > > > > “Generic Port” flags “Architectural transactions” bit by setting it to 1. > > > > A port that sets this bit to 0 will need ISA specific ways/ACPI tables to > > > > describe which specific ISA features would not work in HDM, so an OS > > > > could disable that memory or that feature." > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > The problem, as you know, is that those features are already defined > > > without those "ISA specific ways / ACPI tables". I think it simply > > > must be the case that the only agent in the system that is aware of > > > the intersection of capabilities between ISA and CXL (platform > > > firmware) must mitigate the conflict. I.e. so that the CXL > > > infrastructure need not worry about ISA feature capability and vice > > > versa. To me, this looks like a platform firmware pre-boot > > > configuration menu / switch that turns off CXL (declines to publish > > > ACPI0016 devices) if incompatible ISA feature "X" is enabled, or the > > > reverse turns off ISA feature "X" if CXL is enabled. In other words, > > > the conflict needs to be resolved before the OS boots, setting this > > > bit to 0 is not a viable option for mitigating the conflict because > > > there is no requirement for the OS to even look at this flag. > > > > Leaving it to Firmware is easier for the OS, but could be a couple > > of issues with that: > > Platform firmware may not have a way of disabling ISA feature > > if it is directly visible to the OS via CPU ID registers, and the > > registers can't be trapped to some FW and values adjusted > > on access > > Platform Firmware may not know if the OS supports a specific > > Feature (code may not exist or not default option etc) so it > > may be premature/suboptimal to disable CXL hostbridge > > altogether. Although I suppose a UEFI variable type knob > > could be adjusted in this case and take effect on reboot. > > > > Also, for some *future* ISA features where it may be possible and > > practical to define ISA feature support discovery per NUMA > > node/address range w/ ACPI (prior to userspace ABI being set), > > the platform would want to enable the CXL host bridge and leave > > selective enablement of the feature to the OS. Yes, this is messy > > and best avoided, but it may make sense depending on ISA > > feature and how messy it makes user space. I'm personally > > not in favor of this latter option, but I'm told this was discussed > > in other Coherent interconnect forums and chosen as a path > > forward. > > I think it's reasonable for new stuff to define _OSC or other opt-in > requirements to allow the OS to manage ISA vs CXL conflict policy. For > existing conflicts the only reliable mechanism is decline to publish > ACPI0016 if platform firmware can enumerate an ISA feature that it is > not supported on CXL. So I think the proposal here is a recommendation > for platform firmware implementations that they are responsible for > this conflict resolution unless / until other mechanisms arrive. Agreed with one addition. It should be possible to retrofit negotiation for existing features as well. Default policy should be that it's firmware's problem but if the OS uses _OSC to negotiate something else then it may be possible to be more flexible. As long as the default is safe, relaxing that can happen once mechanisms are defined. The actual decision on whether to enable ACPI0016 can for example be pushed into AML code.
