On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 14:33 -0500, Alan Tull wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 5:58 PM Scott Wood <swood@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> > On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 17:53 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 11:07 +0800, Wu Hao wrote:
> > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_X86) && defined(CONFIG_AS_AVX512)
> > > > +
> > > > +#include <asm/fpu/api.h>
> > > > +
> > > > +static inline void copy512(void *src, void __iomem *dst)
> > > > +{
> > > > + kernel_fpu_begin();
> > > > +
> > > > + asm volatile("vmovdqu64 (%0), %%zmm0;"
> > > > + "vmovntdq %%zmm0, (%1);"
> > > > + :
> > > > + : "r"(src), "r"(dst));
> > > > +
> > > > + kernel_fpu_end();
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > Shouldn't there be some sort of check that AVX512 is actually
> > > supported
> > > on the running system?
> > >
> > > Also, src should be const, and the asm statement should have a memory
> > > clobber.
> > >
> > > > +#else
> > > > +static inline void copy512(void *src, void __iomem *dst)
> > > > +{
> > > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> > > > +}
> > > > +#endif
> > >
> > > Likewise, this will be called if a revision 2 device is used on non-
> > > x86
> > > (or on x86 with an old binutils). The driver should fall back to 32-
> > > bit
> > > in such cases.
> >
> > Sorry, I missed the comment about revision 2 only being on integrated
> > devices -- but will that always be the case? Seems worthwhile to check
> > for
> > AVX512 support anyway. And there's still the possibility of being built
> > with an old binutils such that CONFIG_AS_AVX512 is not set, or running
> > on a
> > kernel where avx512 was disabled via a boot option.
>
> The code checks for CONFIG_AS_AVX512 above.
That just indicates that binutils supports it. Plus, the code does not
check for CONFIG_AS_AVX512 when deciding whether to set pr_datawidth to 64
(and thus call copy512), so you'll get a WARN_ON rather than falling back to
32-bit.
> What boot option are you referring to?
clearcpuid=304
-Scott
