[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230826-anguished-tutu-81d63b3081a7@spud>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2023 00:26:25 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Evan Green <evan@...osinc.com>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>,
Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] RISC-V: Show accurate per-hart isa in /proc/cpuinfo
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 04:11:38PM -0700, Evan Green wrote:
> In /proc/cpuinfo, most of the information we show for each processor is
> specific to that hart: marchid, mvendorid, mimpid, processor, hart,
> compatible, and the mmu size. But the ISA string gets filtered through a
> lowest common denominator mask, so that if one CPU is missing an ISA
> extension, no CPUs will show it.
>
> Now that we track the ISA extensions for each hart, let's report ISA
> extension info accurately per-hart in /proc/cpuinfo. We cannot change
> the "isa:" line, as usermode may be relying on that line to show only
> the common set of extensions supported across all harts. Add a new "hart
> isa" line instead, which reports the true set of extensions for that
> hart.
>
> Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evan@...osinc.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
Can you drop this if you repost?
> +"isa" vs "hart isa" lines in /proc/cpuinfo
> +------------------------------------------
> +
> +The "isa" line in /proc/cpuinfo describes the lowest common denominator of
> +RISC-V ISA extensions recognized by the kernel and implemented on all harts. The
> +"hart isa" line, in contrast, describes the set of extensions recognized by the
> +kernel on the particular hart being described, even if those extensions may not
> +be present on all harts in the system.
> In both cases, the presence of a feature
> +in these lines guarantees only that the hardware has the described capability.
> +Additional kernel support or policy control changes may be required before a
> +feature is fully usable by userspace programs.
I do not think that "in both cases" matches the expectations of
userspace for the existing line. It's too late at night for me to think
properly, but I think our existing implementation does work like you
have documented for FD/V. I think I previously mentioned that it could
misreport things for vector during the review of the vector series but
forgot about it until now.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists