On 9 Feb 2023, at 17:13, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 09:09:16AM -0800, Evan Green wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 10:32 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey Evan, Greg,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 February 2023 06:13:39 GMT, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 12:14:51PM -0800, Evan Green wrote:
>>>>> We don't have enough space for these all in ELF_HWCAP{,2} and there's no
>>>>> system call that quite does this, so let's just provide an arch-specific
>>>>> one to probe for hardware capabilities. This currently just provides
>>>>> m{arch,imp,vendor}id, but with the key-value pairs we can pass more in
>>>>> the future.
>>>>
>>>> Ick, this is exactly what sysfs is designed to export in a sane way.
>>>> Why not just use that instead? The "key" would be the filename, and the
>>>> value the value read from the filename. If the key is not present, the
>>>> file is not present and it's obvious what is happening, no fancy parsing
>>>> and ABI issues at all.
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20221201160614.xpomlqq2fzpzfmcm@kamzik/
>>>
>>> This is the sysfs interface that I mentioned drew
>>> suggested on the v1.
>>> I think it fits ~perfectly with what Greg is suggesting too.
>>
>> Whoops, I'll admit I missed that comment when I reviewed the feedback
>> from v1. I spent some time thinking about sysfs. The problem is this
>> interface will be needed in places like very early program startup. If
>> we're trying to use this in places like the ifunc selector to decide
>> which memcpy to use, having to go open and read a fistful of files is
>> going to be complex that early, and rough on performance.
>
> How is it going to be any different on "performance" than a syscall? Or
> complex? It should be almost identical overall as this is all in-ram
> and not any real I/o is happening. You are limited only by the speed of
> your cpu.
>
>> Really this is data that would go great in the aux vector, except
>> there's probably too much of it to justify preparing and copying into
>> every new process. You could point the aux vector into a vDSO data
>> area. This has the advantage of great performance and no syscall, but
>> has the disadvantages of making that data ABI, and requiring it all to
>> be known up front (eg the kernel can't compute any answers on the
>> fly).
>>
>> After discussions with Palmer, my plan for the next version is to move
>> this into a vDSO function plus a syscall. Private vDSO data will be
>> prepped with common answers for the "all CPUs" case, avoiding the need
>> for a syscall in most cases and making this fast. Since the data is
>> hidden behind the vdso function, it's not ABI, which is a plus. Then
>> the vdso function can fall back to the syscall for cases with exotic
>> CPU masks or keys that are unknown/expensive to compute at runtime.
>
> I still think that's wrong, as you are wanting a set of key/values here,
> which is exactly what sysfs is designed for.
But this needs to be a RISC-V standard interface that can be programmed
against, not something tied to highly Linux-specific things like sysfs.
You’re free to implement that interface with sysfs, but exposing that
as *the* interface to use would be terrible for portability.
Jess
> Please benchmark this first. Heck, if you don't like the
> open/read/close syscall overhead, use my readfile() syscall patch that I
> keep proposing every 6 months or so to remove that overhead. That would
> be a good reason to get that code accepted finally :)
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-riscv mailing list
> linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
