[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240604-finalist-screen-c9f35b5cfc56@spud>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 21:17:54 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@...osinc.com>
Cc: yunhui cui <cuiyunhui@...edance.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ved Shanbhogue <ved@...osinc.com>, Matt Evans <mev@...osinc.com>,
Dylan Jhong <dylan@...estech.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [External] [PATCH RFC/RFT v2 3/4] riscv: Stop emitting
preventive sfence.vma for new vmalloc mappings
On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 01:44:15PM +0200, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 10:52 AM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 09:17:26AM +0200, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 9:15 AM Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@...osinc.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:21 AM yunhui cui <cuiyunhui@...edance.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > As for the current status of the patch, there are two points that can
> > > > > be optimized:
> > > > > 1. Some chip hardware implementations may not cache TLB invalid
> > > > > entries, so it doesn't matter whether svvptc is available or not. Can
> > > > > we consider adding a CONFIG_RISCV_SVVPTC to control it?
> > >
> > > That would produce a non-portable kernel. But I'm not opposed to that
> > > at all, let me check how we handle other extensions. Maybe @Conor
> > > Dooley has some feedback here?
> >
> > To be honest, not really sure what to give feedback on. Could you
> > elaborate on exactly what the option is going to do? Given the
> > portability concern, I guess you were proposing that the option would
> > remove the preventative fences, rather than your current patch that
> > removes them via an alternative?
>
> No no, I won't do that, we need a generic kernel for distros so that's
> not even a question. What Yunhui was asking about (to me) is: can we
> introduce a Kconfig option to always remove the preventive fences,
> bypassing the use of alternatives altogether?
>
> To me, it won't make a difference in terms of performance. But if we
> already offer such a possibility for other extensions, well I'll do
> it. Otherwise, the question is: should we start doing that?
We don't do that for other extensions yet, because currently all the
extensions we have options for are additive. There's like 3 alternative
patchsites, and they are all just one nop? I don't see the point of
having a Kconfig knob for that.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists