On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 10:20:04AM -0700, Evan Green wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:48 AM Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Evan, > > > > Here's my stab at new wording. > > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 01:18:30PM -0700, Evan Green wrote: > > ... > > > diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/uabi.rst b/Documentation/riscv/uabi.rst > > > index 8960fac42c40..afdda580e5a2 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/riscv/uabi.rst > > > +++ b/Documentation/riscv/uabi.rst > > > @@ -42,6 +42,16 @@ An example string following the order is:: > > > > > > rv64imadc_zifoo_zigoo_zafoo_sbar_scar_zxmbaz_xqux_xrux > > > > > > +"isa" vs "hart isa" lines in /proc/cpuinfo > > > +------------------------------------------ > > > + > > > +The "isa" line in /proc/cpuinfo describes the lowest common denominator of > > > +RISC-V ISA extensions understood by the kernel and implemented on all harts. The > > > +"hart isa" line, in contrast, describes the set of extensions understood by the > > > +kernel on the particular hart being described, even if those extensions may not > > > +be present on all harts in the system. The "hart isa" line is consistent with > > > +what's returned by __riscv_hwprobe() when querying for that specific CPU. > > > + > > > > The "isa" and "hart isa" lines in /proc/cpuinfo list RISC-V ISA extensions > > which the kernel can identify (the kernel recognizes the extension's name) > > and have not been filtered out due to effectively not being present. An > > extension is effectively not present when it is unusable, either due to > > defects (which the kernel is aware of), due to missing information which > > is necessary to complete the extension's description, or due to being > > explicitly "hidden", such as when a kernel command line parameter > > instructs the kernel to pretend the extension is not present. Note, an > > extension's presence in a list does not imply the kernel is using the > > extension, nor does it imply that userspace or guest kernels may use the > > extension (__riscv_hwprobe() should be queried for userspace usability. > > The hypervisor should be queried, using hypervisor-specific APIs, to > > check guest kernel usability.) > > > > The "isa" line describes the lowest common denominator of extensions, > > which are the extensions implemented on all harts. In contrast, the > > extensions listed in the "hart isa" line need not be implemented by > > any other hart than the hart corresponding to the line. > > > > --- > > > > I've specifically dropped the 'The "hart isa" line is consistent with > > what's returned by __riscv_hwprobe()...' part because I suspect hwprobe > > could at least lag what gets put in "hart isa", since the kernel may be > > taught about an extension for a different purpose first, neglecting > > hwprobe. And, there may be cases that hwprobe never enumerates an > > extension which the kernel does. > > Thanks for this. My v5 had also dropped the hwprobe part. A few thoughts: > > * It seems like you want to make sure we call out the fact that the > kernel may trim out, for various reasons, ISA extensions that the > hardware does in fact support. This seems reasonable, but I don't > think we need to enumerate the complete list of "why" this might > happen, as that list is likely to go stale. I agree it's better to not [try to] list all the possibilities, assuming we can come up with good, general words to capture the idea. > * The "kernel is using the extension" part is a slightly confusing > perspective in this context, as it sort of implies the kernel has its > own agenda :). I'd expect users looking at /proc/cpuinfo are mostly > trying to figure out what extensions they themselves can use, and the > kernel's behavior factors in only insofar as it's required to support > the user in using a feature. Mostly I guess this is a phrasing nit. We'll have plenty of S-mode extensions listed in these strings. Users who recognize S-mode extensions may want to know if they're listed because the kernel is applying them (and wouldn't be listed otherwise), or whether they're listed simply because they exist on the hart(s). > * The bringing up of guest kernels also seems confusing to me in the > context of /proc/cpuinfo. I'd expect discussions on how host ISA > extensions filter into guest OSes to be in a hypervisor-specifc > document, or at least a section dedicated to virtualization. If there weren't S-mode extensions being listed, then I would agree, but, since there are, it seems odd to not explain what it means for them to be there wrt host and guest kernels. > * I hesitated in adding prescriptive guidance on what users should > do, as I think this section will hold up better over time if it just > describes current characteristics, rather than attempting to prescribe > behavior. If we want a prescriptive documentation on "use this for > that", that should probably be its own section I guess the guidance you're referring to is the "(__riscv_hwprobe() should be queried for userspace usability. The hypervisor should be queried, using hypervisor-specific APIs, to check guest kernel usability.)" bit. I'm fine with dropping that or moving it to another section, but I think the more we point out hwprobe, the better. If developers are reading this /proc/cpuinfo section because they want to detect extensions, then I'd prefer the section redirects them to hwprobe. > > If I try to fold the gist of what you wrote into v5, I get something > like this (also with a very slight section heading change). Let me > know what you think: > > "isa" and "hart isa" lines in /proc/cpuinfo > ------------------------------------------ need one more _ > > The "isa" line in /proc/cpuinfo describes the lowest common denominator of > RISC-V ISA extensions recognized by the kernel and implemented on all harts. The > "hart isa" line, in contrast, describes the set of extensions recognized by the > kernel on the particular hart being described, even if those extensions may not > be present on all harts in the system. > > In both lines, the presence of an extension guarantees only that the > hardware has the described capability. > Additional kernel support or policy changes may be required before an > extension's capability is fully usable by userspace programs. or guest kernels in the case of S-mode extensions. > > Inversely, the absence of an extension in these lines does not > necessarily mean the hardware does not support that feature. The > running kernel may not recognize the extension, or may have > deliberately disabled access to it. I'm not sure about the word "disabled". The kernel can only disable U-mode extensions and S-mode extensions for guests. S-mode extensions for the current kernel would have to be disabled by its next higher privilege level. How about "...may not recognize the extension, or may have deliberately removed it from the listing." (But then readers will wonder why an extension would be deliberately removed from the listing, which brings us back to trying to come up with general words to capture the cases I listed. Or, maybe we don't have to care if they wonder why in this section/document.) Thanks, drew
