On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 12:40:01PM -0400, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 04:19:52PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 05:16:05PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 03:45:46PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 03:53:24PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > > > Add description for the Zawrs (Wait-on-Reservation-Set) ISA extension
> > > > > which was ratified in commit 98918c844281 of riscv-isa-manual.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml | 12 ++++++++++++
> > > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
> > > > > index 468c646247aa..584da2f539e5 100644
> > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
> > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
> > > > > @@ -177,6 +177,18 @@ properties:
> > > > > is supported as ratified at commit 5059e0ca641c ("update to
> > > > > ratified") of the riscv-zacas.
> > > > >
> > > > > + - const: zawrs
> > > > > + description: |
> > > > > + The Zawrs extension for entering a low-power state or for trapping
> > > > > + to a hypervisor while waiting on a store to a memory location, as
> > > > > + ratified in commit 98918c844281 ("Merge pull request #1217 from
> > > > > + riscv/zawrs") of riscv-isa-manual.
> > > >
> > > > This part is fine...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Linux assumes that WRS.NTO will
> > > > > + either always eventually terminate the stall due to the reservation
> > > > > + set becoming invalid, implementation-specific other reasons, or
> > > > > + because a higher privilege level has configured it to cause an
> > > > > + illegal instruction exception after an implementation-specific
> > > > > + bounded time limit.
> > > >
> > > > ...but I don't like this bit. The binding should just describe what the
> > > > property means for the hardware, not discuss specifics about a
> > > > particular OS.
> > > >
> > > > And with my dt-bindings hat off and my kernel hat on, I think that if we
> > > > want to have more specific requirements than the extension provides we
> > > > either need to a) document that zawrs means that it will always
> > > > terminate or b) additionally document a "zawrs-always-terminates" that
> > > > has that meaning and look for it to enable the behaviour.
> > >
> > > IIUC, the text above mostly just needs to remove 'Linux assumes' in order
> > > to provide what we want for (a)? I'm not sure about (b). If Zawrs is
> > > unusable as is, then we should probably just go back to the specs and get
> > > a new standard extension name for a new version which includes the changes
> > > we need.
> >
> > An (official) new name for the behaviour that you actually want, especially
> > if the patchset sent the other day does not have the more stringent
> > requirement (I won't even pretend to understand Zawrs well enough to know
> > whether it does or not), sounds like the ideal outcome. That way you're
> > also sorted on the ACPI side.
>
> What would be the purpose of a vendor implementing WRS.NTO (and putting
> it in the DT) that never terminates? The spec says "Then a subsequent
> WRS.NTO instruction would cause the hart to temporarily stall execution
> in a low- power state until a store occurs to the reservation set or an
> interrupt is observed." Why is this wording for WRS.NTO not sufficient
> to assume that an implementation of this instruction would eventually
> terminate?
>
We can invoke smp_cond_load_relaxed(addr, VAL || anything_we_want()). This
means we may not expect VAL ever to be written, which rules out "until a
store occurs". As for "an interrupt is observed", we don't know which one
to expect to arrive within a "reasonable" amount of time. We need to know
which one(s), since, while wrs.nto will terminate even when interrupts are
globally disabled, we still need to have the interrupt(s) we expect to be
locally enabled. And, the interrupts should arrive in a "reasonable"
amount of time since we want to poll anything_we_want() at a "reasonable"
frequency.
So, we need firmware to promise to enable exceptions if there aren't any
such interrupts. Or, we could require hardware descriptions to identify
which interrupt(s) would be good to have enabled before calling wrs.nto.
Maybe there's already some way to describe something like that?
Thanks,
drew
