On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 12:31:03PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 12:26:30PM +0100, Vladimir Murzin wrote: > > On 5/15/20 6:16 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > For performance analysis it may be desirable to disable MTE altogether > > > via an early param. Introduce arm64.mte_disable and, if true, filter out > > > the sanitised ID_AA64PFR1_EL1.MTE field to avoid exposing the HWCAP to > > > user. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > > > Notes: > > > New in v4. > > > > > > Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 4 ++++ > > > arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 11 +++++++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > > > index f2a93c8679e8..7436e7462b85 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > > > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > > > @@ -373,6 +373,10 @@ > > > arcrimi= [HW,NET] ARCnet - "RIM I" (entirely mem-mapped) cards > > > Format: <io>,<irq>,<nodeID> > > > > > > + arm64.mte_disable= > > > + [ARM64] Disable Linux support for the Memory > > > + Tagging Extension (both user and in-kernel). > > > + > > > > Should it really to take parameter (on/off/true/false)? It may lead to expectation > > that arm64.mte_disable=false should enable MT and, yes, double negatives make it > > look ugly, so if we do need parameter, can it be arm64.mte=on/off/true/false? > > I don't think "performance analysis" is a good justification for this > parameter tbh. We don't tend to add these options for other architectural > features, and I don't see why MTE is any different in this regard. There is an expectation of performance impact with MTE enabled, especially if it's running in synchronous mode. For the in-kernel MTE, we could add a parameter which sets sync vs async at boot time rather than a big disable knob. It won't affect user space however. The other 'justification' is if your hardware has weird unexpected behaviour but I'd like this handled via errata workarounds. I'll let the people who asked for this to chip in ;). I agree with you that we rarely add these (and I rejected a similar option a few weeks ago on the AMU patchset). -- Catalin
