On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 09:15:09AM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
>
>
> On 27/06/2024 23:20, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 03:39:14PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 08:49:57PM -0400, Jesse Taube wrote:
> >>> Check for Zicclsm before checking for unaligned access speed. This will
> >>> greatly reduce the boot up time as finding the access speed is no longer
> >>> necessary.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jesse Taube <jesse@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> V2 -> V3:
> >>> - New patch split from previous patch
> >>> ---
> >>> arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c | 26 ++++++++++++++--------
> >>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c
> >>> index a9a6bcb02acf..329fd289b5c8 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c
> >>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c
> >>> @@ -259,23 +259,31 @@ static int check_unaligned_access_speed_all_cpus(void)
> >>> kfree(bufs);
> >>> return 0;
> >>> }
> >>> +#else /* CONFIG_RISCV_PROBE_UNALIGNED_ACCESS */
> >>> +static int check_unaligned_access_speed_all_cpus(void)
> >>> +{
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +}
> >>> +#endif
> >>>
> >>> static int check_unaligned_access_all_cpus(void)
> >>> {
> >>> - bool all_cpus_emulated = check_unaligned_access_emulated_all_cpus();
> >>> + bool all_cpus_emulated;
> >>> + int cpu;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (riscv_has_extension_unlikely(RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICCLSM)) {
> >>> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> >>> + per_cpu(misaligned_access_speed, cpu) = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_FAST;
> >>
> >> - const: zicclsm
> >> description:
> >> The standard Zicclsm extension for misaligned support for all regular
> >> load and store instructions (including scalar and vector) but not AMOs
> >> or other specialized forms of memory access. Defined in the
> >> RISC-V RVA Profiles Specification.
> >>
> >> Doesn't, unfortunately, say anywhere there that they're actually fast :(
> >
> > Oh no! That is unfortunate that the ISA does not explicitly call that
> > out, but I think that acceptable.
> >
> > If a vendor puts Zicclsm in their isa string, they should expect
> > software to take advantage of misaligned accesses. FAST is our signal to
> > tell software that they should emit misaligned accesses.
>
> AFAIK, Zicclsm is not even an ISA extension, simply a profile
> specification which means that only the execution environment which
> provides the profile support misaligned accesses (cf
> https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-profiles/message/56).
I dunno, the specification status page used to describe it as an
extension:
https://wiki.riscv.org/display/HOME/Specification+Status+-+Historical
My understanding was that these could be considered extensions, just
like we are considering svade to be one.
> . I don't think we
> can extrapolate that the misaligned accesses will be fast at all.
That is my opinion on it too. If it doesn't say "fast" and give a
definition for what that means in the binding, then we can't assume that
it is fast. I'm also wary of extending definitions of extensions in the
binding, because a) I am 90% sure that people writing devicetrees don't
care and b) it'd be a potential difference between DT and ACPI without a
real justification (unlike the zkr or svade/svadu situations).
> > This allows for a generic kernel, like the one a distro would compile, to
> > skip the probing when booting on a system that explicitly called out
> > that the hardware supports misaligned accesses.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
