On 2023/3/27 20:55:59, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 08:53:35PM +0800, xuhaoyue (A) wrote:
>
>>>> static void hns_roce_write512(uint64_t *dest, uint64_t *val)
>>>> {
>>>> mmio_memcpy_x64(dest, val, sizeof(struct hns_roce_rc_sq_wqe));
>>>> @@ -314,7 +319,10 @@ static void hns_roce_write_dwqe(struct hns_roce_qp *qp, void *wqe)
>>>> hr_reg_write(rc_sq_wqe, RCWQE_DB_SL_H, qp->sl >> HNS_ROCE_SL_SHIFT);
>>>> hr_reg_write(rc_sq_wqe, RCWQE_WQE_IDX, qp->sq.head);
>>>>
>>>> - hns_roce_write512(qp->sq.db_reg, wqe);
>>>> + if (qp->flags & HNS_ROCE_QP_CAP_SVE_DIRECT_WQE)
>>>
>>> Why do you need a device flag here?
>>
>> Our CPU die can support NEON instructions and SVE instructions,
>> but some CPU dies only have SVE instructions that can accelerate our direct WQE performance.
>> Therefore, we need to add such a flag bit to distinguish.
>
> NEON vs SVE is available to userspace already, it shouldn't come
> throuhg a driver flag. You need another reason to add this flag
>
> The userspace should detect the right instruction to use based on the
> cpu flags using the attribute stuff I pointed you at
>
> Jason
> .
>
We optimized direct wqe based on different instructions for different CPUs,
but the architecture of the CPUs is the same and supports both SVE and NEON instructions.
We plan to use cpuid to distinguish between them. Is this more reasonable?
Sincerely,
Haoyue
