On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 10:21:36AM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 12:29:57AM +0100, Heiko Stübner wrote: > > Hi Jisheng. > > > > Am Mittwoch, 11. Januar 2023, 18:10:19 CET schrieb Jisheng Zhang: > > > riscv_cpufeature_patch_func() currently only scans a limited set of > > > cpufeatures, explicitly defined with macros. Extend it to probe for all > > > ISA extensions. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > arch/riscv/include/asm/errata_list.h | 9 ++-- > > > arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 63 ++++------------------------ > > > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-) > > > > hmmm ... I do see a somewhat big caveat for this. > > and would like to take back my Reviewed-by for now > > > > > > With this change we would limit the patchable cpufeatures to actual > > riscv extensions. But cpufeatures can also be soft features like > > how performant the core handles unaligned accesses. > > I agree that this needs to be addressed and Jisheng also raised this > yesterday here [*]. It seems we need the concept of cpufeatures, which > may be extensions or non-extensions. > > [*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y77xyNPNqnFQUqAx@xhacker/ > > > > > See Palmer's series [0]. > > > > > > Also this essentially codifies that each ALTERNATIVE can only ever > > be attached to exactly one extension. > > > > But contrary to vendor-errata, it is very likely that we will need > > combinations of different extensions for some alternatives in the future. > > One possible approach may be to combine extensions/non-extensions at boot > time into pseudo-cpufeatures. Then, alternatives can continue attaching to > a single "feature". (I'm not saying that's a better approach than the > bitmap, I'm just suggesting it as something else to consider.) When swtiching pgtable_l4_enabled to static key for the first time, I suggested bitmap for cpufeatures which cover both ISA extensions and non-extensions-but-some-cpu-related-features [1], but it was rejected at that time, it seems we need to revisit the idea. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20220508160749.984-1-jszhang@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Thanks, > drew > > > > > In my optimization quest, I found that it's actually pretty neat to > > convert the errata-id for cpufeatures to a bitfield [1], because then it's > > possible to just combine extensions into said bitfield [2]: > > > > ALTERNATIVE_2("nop", > > "j strcmp_zbb_unaligned", 0, CPUFEATURE_ZBB | CPUFEATURE_FAST_UNALIGNED, 0, CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB, > > "j variant_zbb", 0, CPUFEATURE_ZBB, CPUFEATURE_FAST_UNALIGNED, CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB) > > > > [the additional field there models a "not" component] > > > > So I really feel this would limit us quite a bit. > > > > > > Heiko > > > > > > > > [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/palmer/linux.git/commit/?h=riscv-hwprobe-v1&id=510c491cb9d87dcbdc91c63558dc704968723240 > > [1] https://github.com/mmind/linux-riscv/commit/f57a896122ee7e666692079320fc35829434cf96 > > [2] https://github.com/mmind/linux-riscv/commit/8cef615dab0c00ad68af2651ee5b93d06be17f27#diff-194cb8a86f9fb9b03683295f21c8f46b456a9f94737f01726ddbcbb9e3aace2cR12 > > > >
