lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZnsNctHQROouE1Nj@ghost>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 11:33:22 -0700
From: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@...osinc.com>
To: Evan Green <evan@...osinc.com>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Yangyu Chen <cyy@...self.name>,
	Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
	Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@...osinc.com>,
	Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
	Andy Chiu <andy.chiu@...ive.com>,
	Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>,
	Björn Töpel <bjorn@...osinc.com>,
	Clément Léger <cleger@...osinc.com>,
	Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
	Costa Shulyupin <costa.shul@...hat.com>,
	Erick Archer <erick.archer@....com>,
	"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] RISC-V: hwprobe: Add SCALAR to misaligned perf
 defines

On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 09:51:21AM -0700, Evan Green wrote:
> In preparation for misaligned vector performance hwprobe keys, rename
> the hwprobe key values associated with misaligned scalar accesses to
> include the term SCALAR.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evan@...osinc.com>

Reviewed-by: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@...osinc.com>

> 
> ---
> 
> Changes in v2:
>  - Added patch to rename misaligned perf key values (Palmer)
> 
>  Documentation/arch/riscv/hwprobe.rst       | 20 ++++++++++----------
>  arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h      | 10 +++++-----
>  arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c            | 10 +++++-----
>  arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c       |  6 +++---
>  arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c | 12 ++++++------
>  5 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/arch/riscv/hwprobe.rst b/Documentation/arch/riscv/hwprobe.rst
> index c9f570b1ab60..83f7f3c1347f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/arch/riscv/hwprobe.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/arch/riscv/hwprobe.rst
> @@ -215,22 +215,22 @@ The following keys are defined:
>    the performance of misaligned scalar word accesses on the selected set of
>    processors.
>  
> -  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN`: The performance of misaligned
> -    accesses is unknown.
> +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNKNOWN`: The performance of
> +    misaligned accesses is unknown.
>  
> -  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_EMULATED`: Misaligned accesses are
> +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_EMULATED`: Misaligned accesses are
>      emulated via software, either in or below the kernel.  These accesses are
>      always extremely slow.
>  
> -  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SLOW`: Misaligned word accesses are
> -    slower than equivalent byte accesses.  Misaligned accesses may be supported
> -    directly in hardware, or trapped and emulated by software.
> +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_SLOW`: Misaligned word accesses
> +    are slower than equivalent byte accesses.  Misaligned accesses may be
> +    supported directly in hardware, or trapped and emulated by software.
>  
> -  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_FAST`: Misaligned word accesses are
> -    faster than equivalent byte accesses.
> +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_FAST`: Misaligned word accesses
> +    are faster than equivalent byte accesses.
>  
> -  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNSUPPORTED`: Misaligned accesses are
> -    not supported at all and will generate a misaligned address fault.
> +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNSUPPORTED`: Misaligned accesses
> +    are not supported at all and will generate a misaligned address fault.
>  
>  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_ZICBOZ_BLOCK_SIZE`: An unsigned int which
>    represents the size of the Zicboz block in bytes.
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h b/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h
> index 22073533cea8..e11684d8ae1c 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h
> @@ -66,11 +66,11 @@ struct riscv_hwprobe {
>  #define		RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZVE64F	(1ULL << 40)
>  #define		RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZVE64D	(1ULL << 41)
>  #define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_CPUPERF_0	5
> -#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN	0
> -#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_EMULATED	1
> -#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SLOW		2
> -#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_FAST		3
> -#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNSUPPORTED	4
> +#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNKNOWN		0
> +#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_EMULATED	1
> +#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_SLOW		2
> +#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_FAST		3
> +#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNSUPPORTED	4
>  #define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_MASK		7
>  #define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_ZICBOZ_BLOCK_SIZE	6
>  #define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_PERF	7
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c
> index 991ceba67717..fbf952e7383e 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c
> @@ -170,13 +170,13 @@ static u64 hwprobe_misaligned(const struct cpumask *cpus)
>  			perf = this_perf;
>  
>  		if (perf != this_perf) {
> -			perf = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN;
> +			perf = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNKNOWN;
>  			break;
>  		}
>  	}
>  
>  	if (perf == -1ULL)
> -		return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN;
> +		return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNKNOWN;
>  
>  	return perf;
>  }
> @@ -184,12 +184,12 @@ static u64 hwprobe_misaligned(const struct cpumask *cpus)
>  static u64 hwprobe_misaligned(const struct cpumask *cpus)
>  {
>  	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS))
> -		return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_FAST;
> +		return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_FAST;
>  
>  	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_EMULATED_UNALIGNED_ACCESS) && unaligned_ctl_available())
> -		return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_EMULATED;
> +		return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_EMULATED;
>  
> -	return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SLOW;
> +	return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_SLOW;
>  }
>  #endif
>  
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c
> index b62d5a2f4541..192cd5603e95 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c
> @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ int handle_misaligned_load(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  	perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_ALIGNMENT_FAULTS, 1, regs, addr);
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_PROBE_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
> -	*this_cpu_ptr(&misaligned_access_speed) = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_EMULATED;
> +	*this_cpu_ptr(&misaligned_access_speed) = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_EMULATED;
>  #endif
>  
>  	if (!unaligned_enabled)
> @@ -532,13 +532,13 @@ static bool check_unaligned_access_emulated(int cpu)
>  	unsigned long tmp_var, tmp_val;
>  	bool misaligned_emu_detected;
>  
> -	*mas_ptr = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN;
> +	*mas_ptr = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNKNOWN;
>  
>  	__asm__ __volatile__ (
>  		"       "REG_L" %[tmp], 1(%[ptr])\n"
>  		: [tmp] "=r" (tmp_val) : [ptr] "r" (&tmp_var) : "memory");
>  
> -	misaligned_emu_detected = (*mas_ptr == RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_EMULATED);
> +	misaligned_emu_detected = (*mas_ptr == RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_EMULATED);
>  	/*
>  	 * If unaligned_ctl is already set, this means that we detected that all
>  	 * CPUS uses emulated misaligned access at boot time. If that changed
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c
> index a9a6bcb02acf..160628a2116d 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c
> @@ -34,9 +34,9 @@ static int check_unaligned_access(void *param)
>  	struct page *page = param;
>  	void *dst;
>  	void *src;
> -	long speed = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SLOW;
> +	long speed = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_SLOW;
>  
> -	if (per_cpu(misaligned_access_speed, cpu) != RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN)
> +	if (per_cpu(misaligned_access_speed, cpu) != RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNKNOWN)
>  		return 0;
>  
>  	/* Make an unaligned destination buffer. */
> @@ -95,14 +95,14 @@ static int check_unaligned_access(void *param)
>  	}
>  
>  	if (word_cycles < byte_cycles)
> -		speed = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_FAST;
> +		speed = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_FAST;
>  
>  	ratio = div_u64((byte_cycles * 100), word_cycles);
>  	pr_info("cpu%d: Ratio of byte access time to unaligned word access is %d.%02d, unaligned accesses are %s\n",
>  		cpu,
>  		ratio / 100,
>  		ratio % 100,
> -		(speed == RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_FAST) ? "fast" : "slow");
> +		(speed == RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_FAST) ? "fast" : "slow");
>  
>  	per_cpu(misaligned_access_speed, cpu) = speed;
>  
> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static int check_unaligned_access(void *param)
>  	 * Set the value of fast_misaligned_access of a CPU. These operations
>  	 * are atomic to avoid race conditions.
>  	 */
> -	if (speed == RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_FAST)
> +	if (speed == RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_FAST)
>  		cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &fast_misaligned_access);
>  	else
>  		cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &fast_misaligned_access);
> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ static int riscv_online_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
>  	static struct page *buf;
>  
>  	/* We are already set since the last check */
> -	if (per_cpu(misaligned_access_speed, cpu) != RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN)
> +	if (per_cpu(misaligned_access_speed, cpu) != RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNKNOWN)
>  		goto exit;
>  
>  	buf = alloc_pages(GFP_KERNEL, MISALIGNED_BUFFER_ORDER);
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ