|
| 1 | +====================== |
| 2 | +Asymmetric 32-bit SoCs |
| 3 | +====================== |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +Author: Will Deacon < [email protected]> |
| 6 | + |
| 7 | +This document describes the impact of asymmetric 32-bit SoCs on the |
| 8 | +execution of 32-bit (``AArch32``) applications. |
| 9 | + |
| 10 | +Date: 2021-05-17 |
| 11 | + |
| 12 | +Introduction |
| 13 | +============ |
| 14 | + |
| 15 | +Some Armv9 SoCs suffer from a big.LITTLE misfeature where only a subset |
| 16 | +of the CPUs are capable of executing 32-bit user applications. On such |
| 17 | +a system, Linux by default treats the asymmetry as a "mismatch" and |
| 18 | +disables support for both the ``PER_LINUX32`` personality and |
| 19 | +``execve(2)`` of 32-bit ELF binaries, with the latter returning |
| 20 | +``-ENOEXEC``. If the mismatch is detected during late onlining of a |
| 21 | +64-bit-only CPU, then the onlining operation fails and the new CPU is |
| 22 | +unavailable for scheduling. |
| 23 | + |
| 24 | +Surprisingly, these SoCs have been produced with the intention of |
| 25 | +running legacy 32-bit binaries. Unsurprisingly, that doesn't work very |
| 26 | +well with the default behaviour of Linux. |
| 27 | + |
| 28 | +It seems inevitable that future SoCs will drop 32-bit support |
| 29 | +altogether, so if you're stuck in the unenviable position of needing to |
| 30 | +run 32-bit code on one of these transitionary platforms then you would |
| 31 | +be wise to consider alternatives such as recompilation, emulation or |
| 32 | +retirement. If neither of those options are practical, then read on. |
| 33 | + |
| 34 | +Enabling kernel support |
| 35 | +======================= |
| 36 | + |
| 37 | +Since the kernel support is not completely transparent to userspace, |
| 38 | +allowing 32-bit tasks to run on an asymmetric 32-bit system requires an |
| 39 | +explicit "opt-in" and can be enabled by passing the |
| 40 | +``allow_mismatched_32bit_el0`` parameter on the kernel command-line. |
| 41 | + |
| 42 | +For the remainder of this document we will refer to an *asymmetric |
| 43 | +system* to mean an asymmetric 32-bit SoC running Linux with this kernel |
| 44 | +command-line option enabled. |
| 45 | + |
| 46 | +Userspace impact |
| 47 | +================ |
| 48 | + |
| 49 | +32-bit tasks running on an asymmetric system behave in mostly the same |
| 50 | +way as on a homogeneous system, with a few key differences relating to |
| 51 | +CPU affinity. |
| 52 | + |
| 53 | +sysfs |
| 54 | +----- |
| 55 | + |
| 56 | +The subset of CPUs capable of running 32-bit tasks is described in |
| 57 | +``/sys/devices/system/cpu/aarch32_el0`` and is documented further in |
| 58 | +``Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu``. |
| 59 | + |
| 60 | +**Note:** CPUs are advertised by this file as they are detected and so |
| 61 | +late-onlining of 32-bit-capable CPUs can result in the file contents |
| 62 | +being modified by the kernel at runtime. Once advertised, CPUs are never |
| 63 | +removed from the file. |
| 64 | + |
| 65 | +``execve(2)`` |
| 66 | +------------- |
| 67 | + |
| 68 | +On a homogeneous system, the CPU affinity of a task is preserved across |
| 69 | +``execve(2)``. This is not always possible on an asymmetric system, |
| 70 | +specifically when the new program being executed is 32-bit yet the |
| 71 | +affinity mask contains 64-bit-only CPUs. In this situation, the kernel |
| 72 | +determines the new affinity mask as follows: |
| 73 | + |
| 74 | + 1. If the 32-bit-capable subset of the affinity mask is not empty, |
| 75 | + then the affinity is restricted to that subset and the old affinity |
| 76 | + mask is saved. This saved mask is inherited over ``fork(2)`` and |
| 77 | + preserved across ``execve(2)`` of 32-bit programs. |
| 78 | + |
| 79 | + **Note:** This step does not apply to ``SCHED_DEADLINE`` tasks. |
| 80 | + See `SCHED_DEADLINE`_. |
| 81 | + |
| 82 | + 2. Otherwise, the cpuset hierarchy of the task is walked until an |
| 83 | + ancestor is found containing at least one 32-bit-capable CPU. The |
| 84 | + affinity of the task is then changed to match the 32-bit-capable |
| 85 | + subset of the cpuset determined by the walk. |
| 86 | + |
| 87 | + 3. On failure (i.e. out of memory), the affinity is changed to the set |
| 88 | + of all 32-bit-capable CPUs of which the kernel is aware. |
| 89 | + |
| 90 | +A subsequent ``execve(2)`` of a 64-bit program by the 32-bit task will |
| 91 | +invalidate the affinity mask saved in (1) and attempt to restore the CPU |
| 92 | +affinity of the task using the saved mask if it was previously valid. |
| 93 | +This restoration may fail due to intervening changes to the deadline |
| 94 | +policy or cpuset hierarchy, in which case the ``execve(2)`` continues |
| 95 | +with the affinity unchanged. |
| 96 | + |
| 97 | +Calls to ``sched_setaffinity(2)`` for a 32-bit task will consider only |
| 98 | +the 32-bit-capable CPUs of the requested affinity mask. On success, the |
| 99 | +affinity for the task is updated and any saved mask from a prior |
| 100 | +``execve(2)`` is invalidated. |
| 101 | + |
| 102 | +``SCHED_DEADLINE`` |
| 103 | +------------------ |
| 104 | + |
| 105 | +Explicit admission of a 32-bit deadline task to the default root domain |
| 106 | +(e.g. by calling ``sched_setattr(2)``) is rejected on an asymmetric |
| 107 | +32-bit system unless admission control is disabled by writing -1 to |
| 108 | +``/proc/sys/kernel/sched_rt_runtime_us``. |
| 109 | + |
| 110 | +``execve(2)`` of a 32-bit program from a 64-bit deadline task will |
| 111 | +return ``-ENOEXEC`` if the root domain for the task contains any |
| 112 | +64-bit-only CPUs and admission control is enabled. Concurrent offlining |
| 113 | +of 32-bit-capable CPUs may still necessitate the procedure described in |
| 114 | +`execve(2)`_, in which case step (1) is skipped and a warning is |
| 115 | +emitted on the console. |
| 116 | + |
| 117 | +**Note:** It is recommended that a set of 32-bit-capable CPUs are placed |
| 118 | +into a separate root domain if ``SCHED_DEADLINE`` is to be used with |
| 119 | +32-bit tasks on an asymmetric system. Failure to do so is likely to |
| 120 | +result in missed deadlines. |
| 121 | + |
| 122 | +Cpusets |
| 123 | +------- |
| 124 | + |
| 125 | +The affinity of a 32-bit task on an asymmetric system may include CPUs |
| 126 | +that are not explicitly allowed by the cpuset to which it is attached. |
| 127 | +This can occur as a result of the following two situations: |
| 128 | + |
| 129 | + - A 64-bit task attached to a cpuset which allows only 64-bit CPUs |
| 130 | + executes a 32-bit program. |
| 131 | + |
| 132 | + - All of the 32-bit-capable CPUs allowed by a cpuset containing a |
| 133 | + 32-bit task are offlined. |
| 134 | + |
| 135 | +In both of these cases, the new affinity is calculated according to step |
| 136 | +(2) of the process described in `execve(2)`_ and the cpuset hierarchy is |
| 137 | +unchanged irrespective of the cgroup version. |
| 138 | + |
| 139 | +CPU hotplug |
| 140 | +----------- |
| 141 | + |
| 142 | +On an asymmetric system, the first detected 32-bit-capable CPU is |
| 143 | +prevented from being offlined by userspace and any such attempt will |
| 144 | +return ``-EPERM``. Note that suspend is still permitted even if the |
| 145 | +primary CPU (i.e. CPU 0) is 64-bit-only. |
| 146 | + |
| 147 | +KVM |
| 148 | +--- |
| 149 | + |
| 150 | +Although KVM will not advertise 32-bit EL0 support to any vCPUs on an |
| 151 | +asymmetric system, a broken guest at EL1 could still attempt to execute |
| 152 | +32-bit code at EL0. In this case, an exit from a vCPU thread in 32-bit |
| 153 | +mode will return to host userspace with an ``exit_reason`` of |
| 154 | +``KVM_EXIT_FAIL_ENTRY`` and will remain non-runnable until successfully |
| 155 | +re-initialised by a subsequent ``KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT`` operation. |
0 commit comments