From: "Clément Léger" <cleger@rivosinc.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/11] riscv: add ISA extensions validation
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 14:48:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9d0840ff-d00a-4866-8f45-e8676f369ad6@rivosinc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240514-sip-exclusion-014b07b01f4c@spud>
On 14/05/2024 14:43, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 09:53:08AM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30/04/2024 13:44, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 09:18:47AM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 30/04/2024 00:15, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 05:04:55PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
>>>>>> Since a few extensions (Zicbom/Zicboz) already needs validation and
>>>>>> future ones will need it as well (Zc*) add a validate() callback to
>>>>>> struct riscv_isa_ext_data. This require to rework the way extensions are
>>>>>> parsed and split it in two phases. First phase is isa string or isa
>>>>>> extension list parsing and consists in enabling all the extensions in a
>>>>>> temporary bitmask without any validation. The second step "resolves" the
>>>>>> final isa bitmap, handling potential missing dependencies. The mechanism
>>>>>> is quite simple and simply validate each extension described in the
>>>>>> temporary bitmap before enabling it in the final isa bitmap. validate()
>>>>>> callbacks can return either 0 for success, -EPROBEDEFER if extension
>>>>>> needs to be validated again at next loop. A previous ISA bitmap is kept
>>>>>> to avoid looping mutliple times if an extension dependencies are never
>>>>>> satisfied until we reach a stable state. In order to avoid any potential
>>>>>> infinite looping, allow looping a maximum of the number of extension we
>>>>>> handle. Zicboz and Zicbom extensions are modified to use this validation
>>>>>> mechanism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your reply to my last review only talked about part of my comments,
>>>>> which is usually what you do when you're gonna implement the rest, but
>>>>> you haven't.
>>>>> I like the change you've made to shorten looping, but I'd at least like
>>>>> a response to why a split is not worth doing :)
>>>>
>>>> Hi Conor,
>>>>
>>>> Missed that point since I was feeling that my solution actually
>>>> addresses your concerns. Your argument was that there is no reason to
>>>> loop for Zicbom/Zicboz but that would also apply to Zcf in case we are
>>>> on RV64 as well (since zcf is not supported on RV64). So for Zcf, that
>>>> would lead to using both mecanism or additional ifdefery with little to
>>>> no added value since the current solution actually solves both cases:
>>>>
>>>> - We don't have any extra looping if all validation callback returns 0
>>>> (except the initial one on riscv_isa_ext, which is kind of unavoidable).
>>>> - Zicbom, Zicboz callbacks will be called only once (which was one of
>>>> your concern).
>>>>
>>>> Adding a second kind of callback for after loop validation would only
>>>> lead to a bunch of additional macros/ifdefery for extensions with
>>>> validate() callback, with validate_end() or with both (ie Zcf)). For
>>>> these reasons, I do not think there is a need for a separate mechanism
>>>> nor additional callback for such extensions except adding extra code
>>>> with no real added functionality.
>>>>
>>>> AFAIK, the platform driver probing mechanism works the same, the probe()
>>>> callback is actually called even if for some reason properties are
>>>> missing from nodes for platform devices and thus the probe() returns
>>>> -EINVAL or whatever.
>>>>
>>>> Hope this answers your question,
>>>
>>> Yeah, pretty much I am happy with just an "it's not worth doing it"
>>> response. Given it wasn't your first choice, I doubt you're overly happy
>>> with it either, but I really would like to avoid looping to closure to
>>> sort out dependencies - particularly on the boot CPU before we bring
>>> anyone else up, but if the code is now more proactive about breaking
>>> out, I suppose that'll have to do :)
>>> I kinda wish we didn't do this at all, but I think we've brought this
>>> upon ourselves via hwprobe. I'm still on the fence as to whether things
>>> that are implied need to be handled in this way. I think I'll bring this
>>> up tomorrow at the weekly call, because so far it's only been you and I
>>> discussing this really and it's a policy decision that hwprobe-ists
>>> should be involved in I think.
>>
>> Hi Conor,
>>
>> Were you able to discuss that topic ?
>
> I realised last night that I'd not got back to this thread and meant to
> do that today (I had accidentally deleted it from my mailbox), but I had
> a migraine this morning and so didn't.
> I did bring it up and IIRC Palmer was of the opinion that we should try
> our best to infer extensions.
>
>>> Implied extensions aside, I think we will eventually need this stuff
>>> anyway, for extensions that make no sense to consider if a config option
>>> for a dependency is disabled.
>>> From talking to Eric Biggers the other week about
>>> riscv_isa_extension_available() I'm of the opinion that we need to do
>>> better with that interface w.r.t. extension and config dependencies,
>>> and what seems like a good idea to me at the moment is putting tests for
>>> IS_ENABLED(RISCV_ISA_FOO) into these validate hooks.
>>>
>>> I'll try to look at the actual implementation here tomorrow.
>>
>> Did you found time to look at the implementation ?
>
> No, with the above excuse. I'll try to get to it today or tomorrow...
No worries, I was on vacation and was just checking if I hadn't missed
anything in the meantime. Take your time ;)
Thanks,
Clément
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-14 12:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-29 15:04 [PATCH v4 00/11] Add support for a few Zc* extensions as well as Zcmop Clément Léger
2024-04-29 15:04 ` [PATCH v4 01/11] dt-bindings: riscv: add Zca, Zcf, Zcd and Zcb ISA extension description Clément Léger
2024-04-29 15:04 ` [PATCH v4 02/11] riscv: add ISA extensions validation Clément Léger
2024-04-29 22:15 ` Conor Dooley
2024-04-30 7:18 ` Clément Léger
2024-04-30 11:44 ` Conor Dooley
2024-04-30 11:58 ` Clément Léger
2024-04-30 12:12 ` Conor Dooley
2024-04-30 12:33 ` Clément Léger
2024-05-14 7:53 ` Clément Léger
2024-05-14 12:43 ` Conor Dooley
2024-05-14 12:48 ` Clément Léger [this message]
2024-05-14 14:44 ` Conor Dooley
2024-05-14 17:39 ` Conor Dooley
2024-05-15 13:26 ` Clément Léger
2024-05-15 15:47 ` Conor Dooley
2024-04-29 15:04 ` [PATCH v4 03/11] riscv: add ISA parsing for Zca, Zcf, Zcd and Zcb Clément Léger
2024-05-01 9:32 ` Conor Dooley
2024-04-29 15:04 ` [PATCH v4 04/11] riscv: hwprobe: export Zca, Zcf, Zcd and Zcb ISA extensions Clément Léger
2024-04-29 15:04 ` [PATCH v4 05/11] RISC-V: KVM: Allow Zca, Zcf, Zcd and Zcb extensions for Guest/VM Clément Léger
2024-04-29 15:04 ` [PATCH v4 06/11] KVM: riscv: selftests: Add some Zc* extensions to get-reg-list test Clément Léger
2024-04-29 15:05 ` [PATCH v4 07/11] dt-bindings: riscv: add Zcmop ISA extension description Clément Léger
2024-04-29 15:05 ` [PATCH v4 08/11] riscv: add ISA extension parsing for Zcmop Clément Léger
2024-05-01 9:33 ` Conor Dooley
2024-04-29 15:05 ` [PATCH v4 09/11] riscv: hwprobe: export Zcmop ISA extension Clément Léger
2024-04-29 15:05 ` [PATCH v4 10/11] RISC-V: KVM: Allow Zcmop extension for Guest/VM Clément Léger
2024-04-29 15:05 ` [PATCH v4 11/11] KVM: riscv: selftests: Add Zcmop extension to get-reg-list test Clément Léger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9d0840ff-d00a-4866-8f45-e8676f369ad6@rivosinc.com \
--to=cleger@rivosinc.com \
--cc=anup@brainfault.org \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=atishp@atishpatra.org \
--cc=conor.dooley@microchip.com \
--cc=conor@kernel.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org \
--cc=kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).