On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 at 11:26, Wang, Xiao W <xiao.w.wang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > A gentle ping. > Any other comments or suggestions for this patch? Or maybe we would review it in the Linux 6.7 development cycle? > This is going to be 6.7 material at the earliest in any case. I am fine with the change as far as the EFI code is concerned, but I'd suggest dropping EFI_ from the macro name, as it could be #define'd for other reasons too. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wang, Xiao W > > Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2023 6:24 PM > > To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx; palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx; > > aou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; anup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Li, Haicheng > > <haicheng.li@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > efi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] RISC-V: Optimize bitops with Zbb extension > > > > Hi, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2023 5:39 PM > > > To: Wang, Xiao W <xiao.w.wang@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx; palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx; > > > aou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; anup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Li, Haicheng > > > <haicheng.li@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > > efi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Optimize bitops with Zbb extension > > > > > > On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 at 04:39, Xiao Wang <xiao.w.wang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > This patch leverages the alternative mechanism to dynamically optimize > > > > bitops (including __ffs, __fls, ffs, fls) with Zbb instructions. When > > > > Zbb ext is not supported by the runtime CPU, legacy implementation is > > > > used. If Zbb is supported, then the optimized variants will be selected > > > > via alternative patching. > > > > > > > > The legacy bitops support is taken from the generic C implementation as > > > > fallback. > > > > > > > > If the parameter is a build-time constant, we leverage compiler builtin to > > > > calculate the result directly, this approach is inspired by x86 bitops > > > > implementation. > > > > > > > > EFI stub runs before the kernel, so alternative mechanism should not be > > > > used there, this patch introduces a macro EFI_NO_ALTERNATIVE for this > > > > purpose. > > > > > > > > > > Why? The unpatched sequences work fine, no? > > > > It works. But there would be build warning: orphan section `.init.alternative' > > from `./drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/gop.stub.o' being placed in section > > `.init.alternative'. Besides, w/o this MACRO, the optimized variant would > > never be used at runtime, so this patch choose to disable alternative. > > > > BRs, > > Xiao > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xiao Wang <xiao.w.wang@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > arch/riscv/include/asm/bitops.h | 266 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > > > drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile | 2 +- > > > > 2 files changed, 264 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/bitops.h > > > b/arch/riscv/include/asm/bitops.h > > > > index 3540b690944b..f727f6489cd5 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/bitops.h > > > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/bitops.h > > > > @@ -15,13 +15,273 @@ > > > > #include <asm/barrier.h> > > > > #include <asm/bitsperlong.h> > > > > > > > > +#if !defined(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB) || defined(EFI_NO_ALTERNATIVE) > > > > #include <asm-generic/bitops/__ffs.h> > > > > -#include <asm-generic/bitops/ffz.h> > > > > -#include <asm-generic/bitops/fls.h> > > > > #include <asm-generic/bitops/__fls.h> > > > > +#include <asm-generic/bitops/ffs.h> > > > > +#include <asm-generic/bitops/fls.h> > > > > + > > > > +#else > > > > +#include <asm/alternative-macros.h> > > > > +#include <asm/hwcap.h> > > > > + > > > > +#if (BITS_PER_LONG == 64) > > > > +#define CTZW "ctzw " > > > > +#define CLZW "clzw " > > > > +#elif (BITS_PER_LONG == 32) > > > > +#define CTZW "ctz " > > > > +#define CLZW "clz " > > > > +#else > > > > +#error "Unexpected BITS_PER_LONG" > > > > +#endif > > [...]
