On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:26:05AM -0700, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 06:00:43PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote:
> > +el0_sve_acc:
> > + /*
> > + * Scalable Vector Extension access
> > + */
> > + enable_dbg
> > + ct_user_exit
> > + mov x0, x25
> > + mov x1, sp
> > + bl do_sve_acc
> > + b ret_to_user
>
> I think do_sve_acc() runs with interrupts disabled. We may have some
> high latency for large SVE states.
Historically I wanted to play safe.
I meant to change this to enable_dbg_and_irq now, but it looks like I
forgot to do it.
I'll double-check that do_sve_acc() does nothing that makes it unsafe to
enable irqs, but it should be OK. It's certainly _intended_ to be
irq-safe.
> > +/*
> > + * Trapped SVE access
> > + */
> > +void do_sve_acc(unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > + /* Even if we chose not to use SVE, the hardware could still trap: */
> > + if (unlikely(!system_supports_sve()) || WARN_ON(is_compat_task())) {
> > + force_signal_inject(SIGILL, ILL_ILLOPC, regs, 0);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + task_fpsimd_save();
> > +
> > + sve_alloc(current);
> > + fpsimd_to_sve(current);
> > + if (test_and_set_thread_flag(TIF_SVE))
> > + WARN_ON(1); /* SVE access shouldn't have trapped */
> > +
> > + task_fpsimd_load();
> > +}
>
> When this function is entered, do we expect TIF_SVE to always be
> cleared? It's worth adding a comment on the expected conditions. If
Yes, and this is required for correctness, as you observe.
I had a BUG_ON() here which I removed, but it makes sense to add a
comment to capture the precondition here, and how it is satisfied.
> that's the case, task_fpsimd_save() would only save the FPSIMD state
> which is fine. However, you subsequently transfer the FPSIMD state to
> SVE, set TIF_SVE and restore the full SVE state. If we don't care about
> the SVE state here, can we call task_fpsimd_load() *before* setting
> TIF_SVE?
There should be no way to reach this code with TIF_SVE set, unless
task_fpsimd_load() sets the CPACR trap bit wrongly, or the hardware is
broken -- either of which is a bug.
> I may as well have confused myself with the state bouncing between
> FPSIMD and SVE (more reasons to document the data flow better ;)).
Agreed, I think this does need more explanation... I'm currently
trying to figure out the best way to describe it.
Cheers
---Dave
