On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:58:05PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:07:30PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:46:32AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c
> > > index 5df857e32b48..4706f841e758 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c
> > > @@ -6,7 +6,9 @@
> > > #include <linux/ptrace.h>
> > >
> > > #include <asm/daifflags.h>
> > > +#include <asm/fpsimd.h>
> > > #include <asm/thread_info.h>
> > > +#include <asm/unistd.h>
> > >
> > > long do_ni_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs);
> > >
> > > @@ -41,8 +43,8 @@ static inline bool has_syscall_work(unsigned long flags)
> > > int syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs);
> > > void syscall_trace_exit(struct pt_regs *regs);
> > >
> > > -asmlinkage void el0_svc_common(struct pt_regs *regs, int scno, int sc_nr,
> > > - syscall_fn_t syscall_table[])
> > > +static void el0_svc_common(struct pt_regs *regs, int scno, int sc_nr,
> > > + syscall_fn_t syscall_table[])
> > > {
> > > unsigned long flags = current_thread_info()->flags;
> > >
> > > @@ -79,3 +81,37 @@ asmlinkage void el0_svc_common(struct pt_regs *regs, int scno, int sc_nr,
> > > trace_exit:
> > > syscall_trace_exit(regs);
> > > }
> > > +
> > > +static inline void sve_user_reset(void)
> >
> > Static function with no caller...
>
> Ugh, this was intended to be called below in el0_svc_handler().
>
> > > +{
> > > + if (!system_supports_sve())
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * task_fpsimd_load() won't be called to update CPACR_EL1 in
> > > + * ret_to_user unless TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE is still set, which only
> > > + * happens if a context switch or kernel_neon_begin() or context
> > > + * modification (sigreturn, ptrace) intervenes.
> > > + * So, ensure that CPACR_EL1 is already correct for the fast-path case.
> > > + */
> > > + if (test_and_clear_thread_flag(TIF_SVE))
> > > + sve_user_disable();
> >
> > sve_user_disable() is already inline, and incorporates the if()
> > internally via sysreg_clear_set().
> >
> > So, should this just be
> >
> > clear_thread_flag(TIF_SVE);
> > sve_user_disable();
>
> Sure. That does mean we'll unconditionally read cpacr_el1, but I assume
> you're happy with that. I'll note the difference in the commit message.
This is what the code does today, conditioned no system_supports_sve().
I'm assuming that reading CPACR_EL1 is cheap ... or have you come across
counterexamples to that?
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +extern syscall_fn_t sys_call_table[];
> > > +
> > > +asmlinkage void el0_svc_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > +{
> >
> > if (system_supports_sve()) ?
> >
> > > + sve_user_disable();
> >
> > Or should this be replaced by a call to sve_user_reset()?
> >
> > I suspect the latter, since we do want to be clearing TIF_SVE here too.
>
> Yes, this was mean to be sve_user_reset().
OK. Just to be clear, I think there should be a system_supports_sve()
check here (in case that wasn't obvious from my previous reply).
Cheers
---Dave
