[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DM8PR11MB5751DA69DEEAAC9B06623E0BB80FA@DM8PR11MB5751.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2023 10:24:21 +0000
From: "Wang, Xiao W" <xiao.w.wang@...el.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
CC: "paul.walmsley@...ive.com" <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
"palmer@...belt.com" <palmer@...belt.com>,
"aou@...s.berkeley.edu" <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
"anup@...infault.org" <anup@...infault.org>,
"Li, Haicheng" <haicheng.li@...el.com>,
"linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] RISC-V: Optimize bitops with Zbb extension
Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
> Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2023 5:39 PM
> To: Wang, Xiao W <xiao.w.wang@...el.com>
> Cc: paul.walmsley@...ive.com; palmer@...belt.com;
> aou@...s.berkeley.edu; anup@...infault.org; Li, Haicheng
> <haicheng.li@...el.com>; linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org; linux-
> efi@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Optimize bitops with Zbb extension
>
> On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 at 04:39, Xiao Wang <xiao.w.wang@...el.com> 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@...el.com>
> > ---
> > 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
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists