diff mbox series

[v4,3/6] RISC-V: hwprobe: Add support for RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA

Message ID 20230314183220.513101-4-evan@rivosinc.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Headers show
Series [v4,1/6] RISC-V: Move struct riscv_cpuinfo to new header | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
conchuod/tree_selection fail Failed to apply to next/pending-fixes or riscv/for-next

Commit Message

Evan Green March 14, 2023, 6:32 p.m. UTC 
We have an implicit set of base behaviors that userspace depends on,
which are mostly defined in various ISA specifications.

Co-developed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com>
Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
---

Changes in v4:
 - More newlines in BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA documentation (Conor)

Changes in v3:
 - Refactored base ISA behavior probe to allow kernel probing as well,
   in prep for vDSO data initialization.
 - Fixed doc warnings in IMA text list, use :c:macro:.

 Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst       | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h      |  2 +-
 arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h |  5 +++++
 arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c         | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Heiko Stuebner March 21, 2023, 4:41 p.m. UTC | #1 
Hi Evan,

Am Dienstag, 14. März 2023, 19:32:17 CET schrieb Evan Green:
> We have an implicit set of base behaviors that userspace depends on,
> which are mostly defined in various ISA specifications.
> 
> Co-developed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com>
> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> ---
> 
> Changes in v4:
>  - More newlines in BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA documentation (Conor)
> 
> Changes in v3:
>  - Refactored base ISA behavior probe to allow kernel probing as well,
>    in prep for vDSO data initialization.
>  - Fixed doc warnings in IMA text list, use :c:macro:.
> 
>  Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst       | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h      |  2 +-
>  arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h |  5 +++++
>  arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c         | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst b/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst
> index 211828f706e3..945d44683c40 100644
> --- a/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst
> @@ -39,3 +39,27 @@ The following keys are defined:
>  
>  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_MIMPLID`: Contains the value of ``mimplid``, as
>    defined by the RISC-V privileged architecture specification.
> +
> +* :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR`: A bitmask containing the base
> +  user-visible behavior that this kernel supports.  The following base user ABIs
> +  are defined:
> +
> +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA`: Support for rv32ima or
> +    rv64ima, as defined by version 2.2 of the user ISA and version 1.10 of the
> +    privileged ISA, with the following known exceptions (more exceptions may be
> +    added, but only if it can be demonstrated that the user ABI is not broken):
> +
> +    * The :fence.i: instruction cannot be directly executed by userspace
> +      programs (it may still be executed in userspace via a
> +      kernel-controlled mechanism such as the vDSO).
> +
> +* :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0`: A bitmask containing the extensions
> +  that are compatible with the :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA`:
> +  base system behavior.
> +
> +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_FD`: The F and D extensions are supported, as
> +    defined by commit cd20cee ("FMIN/FMAX now implement
> +    minimumNumber/maximumNumber, not minNum/maxNum") of the RISC-V ISA manual.
> +
> +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C`: The C extension is supported, as defined
> +    by version 2.2 of the RISC-V ISA manual.

just wondering, is there a plan on how further extensions should be added this this?
[as we have this big plethora of them :-) ]

Aka things like Zbb and friends will probably also be relevant to userspace, so just
fill up RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0 with more elements and once full switch to
RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_1 , RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_2, etc?

Or do we have some more elaborate sorting mechanism?


Thanks
Heiko



> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h
> index 08d1c3bdd78a..7e52f1e1fe10 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h
> @@ -8,6 +8,6 @@
>  
>  #include <uapi/asm/hwprobe.h>
>  
> -#define RISCV_HWPROBE_MAX_KEY 2
> +#define RISCV_HWPROBE_MAX_KEY 4
>  
>  #endif
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h b/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h
> index 591802047460..fc5665411782 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h
> @@ -20,6 +20,11 @@ struct riscv_hwprobe {
>  #define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_MVENDORID	0
>  #define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_MARCHID	1
>  #define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_MIMPID	2
> +#define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR	3
> +#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA	(1 << 0)
> +#define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0	4
> +#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_FD		(1 << 0)
> +#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C		(1 << 1)
>  /* Increase RISCV_HWPROBE_MAX_KEY when adding items. */
>  
>  #endif
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c
> index 981d23457f13..1c118438b1b3 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c
> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
>  #include <asm/cacheflush.h>
>  #include <asm/hwprobe.h>
>  #include <asm/sbi.h>
> +#include <asm/switch_to.h>
>  #include <asm/uaccess.h>
>  #include <asm/unistd.h>
>  #include <asm-generic/mman-common.h>
> @@ -125,6 +126,25 @@ static void hwprobe_one_pair(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair,
>  	case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_MIMPID:
>  		hwprobe_arch_id(pair, cpus);
>  		break;
> +	/*
> +	 * The kernel already assumes that the base single-letter ISA
> +	 * extensions are supported on all harts, and only supports the
> +	 * IMA base, so just cheat a bit here and tell that to
> +	 * userspace.
> +	 */
> +	case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR:
> +		pair->value = RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA;
> +		break;
> +
> +	case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0:
> +		pair->value = 0;
> +		if (has_fpu())
> +			pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_FD;
> +
> +		if (elf_hwcap & RISCV_ISA_EXT_c)
> +			pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C;
> +
> +		break;
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * For forward compatibility, unknown keys don't fail the whole
>
Heiko Stuebner March 21, 2023, 8:25 p.m. UTC | #2 
Am Dienstag, 14. März 2023, 19:32:17 CET schrieb Evan Green:
> We have an implicit set of base behaviors that userspace depends on,
> which are mostly defined in various ISA specifications.
> 
> Co-developed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com>
> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>

This needs one fix, described blow, with that applied:
Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu>


> +	case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0:
> +		pair->value = 0;
> +		if (has_fpu())
> +			pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_FD;
> +
> +		if (elf_hwcap & RISCV_ISA_EXT_c)

This wants to be 
		if (elf_hwcap & riscv_isa_extension_mask(c))

i.e. elf_hwcap is a bitmap, RISCV_ISA_EXT_c is the number "2" and
riscv_isa_extension_mask() will get you the shifted bit.


> +			pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C;
> +
> +		break;
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * For forward compatibility, unknown keys don't fail the whole
> 

Heiko
Conor Dooley March 22, 2023, 3:35 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:32:17AM -0700, Evan Green wrote:
> We have an implicit set of base behaviors that userspace depends on,
> which are mostly defined in various ISA specifications.
> 
> Co-developed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com>
> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>

> @@ -125,6 +126,25 @@ static void hwprobe_one_pair(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair,
>  	case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_MIMPID:
>  		hwprobe_arch_id(pair, cpus);
>  		break;
> +	/*
> +	 * The kernel already assumes that the base single-letter ISA
> +	 * extensions are supported on all harts, and only supports the
> +	 * IMA base, so just cheat a bit here and tell that to
> +	 * userspace.
> +	 */
> +	case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR:
> +		pair->value = RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA;
> +		break;
> +
> +	case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0:
> +		pair->value = 0;
> +		if (has_fpu())
> +			pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_FD;
> +
> +		if (elf_hwcap & RISCV_ISA_EXT_c)

Random thought while reviewing another patch, and I kinda felt a bit
stupid following the existing code to try and make sure, but should this
become a call to riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, c)?
It may be nice to propagate that helper, if it works, than check the bit
directly.

Cheers,
Conor.

> +			pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C;
> +
> +		break;
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * For forward compatibility, unknown keys don't fail the whole
> -- 
> 2.25.1
>
Evan Green March 22, 2023, 4:04 p.m. UTC | #4 
Yep, you and Heiko are on the same wavelength these days. I'll make that change.
-Evan

On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 8:36 AM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:32:17AM -0700, Evan Green wrote:
> > We have an implicit set of base behaviors that userspace depends on,
> > which are mostly defined in various ISA specifications.
> >
> > Co-developed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
>
> > @@ -125,6 +126,25 @@ static void hwprobe_one_pair(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair,
> >       case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_MIMPID:
> >               hwprobe_arch_id(pair, cpus);
> >               break;
> > +     /*
> > +      * The kernel already assumes that the base single-letter ISA
> > +      * extensions are supported on all harts, and only supports the
> > +      * IMA base, so just cheat a bit here and tell that to
> > +      * userspace.
> > +      */
> > +     case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR:
> > +             pair->value = RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA;
> > +             break;
> > +
> > +     case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0:
> > +             pair->value = 0;
> > +             if (has_fpu())
> > +                     pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_FD;
> > +
> > +             if (elf_hwcap & RISCV_ISA_EXT_c)
>
> Random thought while reviewing another patch, and I kinda felt a bit
> stupid following the existing code to try and make sure, but should this
> become a call to riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, c)?
> It may be nice to propagate that helper, if it works, than check the bit
> directly.
>
> Cheers,
> Conor.
>
> > +                     pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C;
> > +
> > +             break;
> >
> >       /*
> >        * For forward compatibility, unknown keys don't fail the whole
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
Evan Green March 22, 2023, 4:17 p.m. UTC | #5 
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 9:41 AM Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Evan,
>
> Am Dienstag, 14. März 2023, 19:32:17 CET schrieb Evan Green:
> > We have an implicit set of base behaviors that userspace depends on,
> > which are mostly defined in various ISA specifications.
> >
> > Co-developed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes in v4:
> >  - More newlines in BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA documentation (Conor)
> >
> > Changes in v3:
> >  - Refactored base ISA behavior probe to allow kernel probing as well,
> >    in prep for vDSO data initialization.
> >  - Fixed doc warnings in IMA text list, use :c:macro:.
> >
> >  Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst       | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h      |  2 +-
> >  arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h |  5 +++++
> >  arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c         | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >  4 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst b/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst
> > index 211828f706e3..945d44683c40 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst
> > @@ -39,3 +39,27 @@ The following keys are defined:
> >
> >  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_MIMPLID`: Contains the value of ``mimplid``, as
> >    defined by the RISC-V privileged architecture specification.
> > +
> > +* :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR`: A bitmask containing the base
> > +  user-visible behavior that this kernel supports.  The following base user ABIs
> > +  are defined:
> > +
> > +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA`: Support for rv32ima or
> > +    rv64ima, as defined by version 2.2 of the user ISA and version 1.10 of the
> > +    privileged ISA, with the following known exceptions (more exceptions may be
> > +    added, but only if it can be demonstrated that the user ABI is not broken):
> > +
> > +    * The :fence.i: instruction cannot be directly executed by userspace
> > +      programs (it may still be executed in userspace via a
> > +      kernel-controlled mechanism such as the vDSO).
> > +
> > +* :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0`: A bitmask containing the extensions
> > +  that are compatible with the :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA`:
> > +  base system behavior.
> > +
> > +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_FD`: The F and D extensions are supported, as
> > +    defined by commit cd20cee ("FMIN/FMAX now implement
> > +    minimumNumber/maximumNumber, not minNum/maxNum") of the RISC-V ISA manual.
> > +
> > +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C`: The C extension is supported, as defined
> > +    by version 2.2 of the RISC-V ISA manual.
>
> just wondering, is there a plan on how further extensions should be added this this?
> [as we have this big plethora of them :-) ]
>
> Aka things like Zbb and friends will probably also be relevant to userspace, so just
> fill up RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0 with more elements and once full switch to
> RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_1 , RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_2, etc?
>
> Or do we have some more elaborate sorting mechanism?

That sounds reasonable to me. I tried to think about a couple of
possible sorting patterns, but when I played them out mentally they
were only ever aesthetically pleasing with no technical benefit, and
possibly added technical debt.
-Evan
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst b/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst
index 211828f706e3..945d44683c40 100644
--- a/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst
+++ b/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst
@@ -39,3 +39,27 @@  The following keys are defined:
 
 * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_MIMPLID`: Contains the value of ``mimplid``, as
   defined by the RISC-V privileged architecture specification.
+
+* :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR`: A bitmask containing the base
+  user-visible behavior that this kernel supports.  The following base user ABIs
+  are defined:
+
+  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA`: Support for rv32ima or
+    rv64ima, as defined by version 2.2 of the user ISA and version 1.10 of the
+    privileged ISA, with the following known exceptions (more exceptions may be
+    added, but only if it can be demonstrated that the user ABI is not broken):
+
+    * The :fence.i: instruction cannot be directly executed by userspace
+      programs (it may still be executed in userspace via a
+      kernel-controlled mechanism such as the vDSO).
+
+* :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0`: A bitmask containing the extensions
+  that are compatible with the :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA`:
+  base system behavior.
+
+  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_FD`: The F and D extensions are supported, as
+    defined by commit cd20cee ("FMIN/FMAX now implement
+    minimumNumber/maximumNumber, not minNum/maxNum") of the RISC-V ISA manual.
+
+  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C`: The C extension is supported, as defined
+    by version 2.2 of the RISC-V ISA manual.
diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h
index 08d1c3bdd78a..7e52f1e1fe10 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h
+++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h
@@ -8,6 +8,6 @@ 
 
 #include <uapi/asm/hwprobe.h>
 
-#define RISCV_HWPROBE_MAX_KEY 2
+#define RISCV_HWPROBE_MAX_KEY 4
 
 #endif
diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h b/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h
index 591802047460..fc5665411782 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h
+++ b/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h
@@ -20,6 +20,11 @@  struct riscv_hwprobe {
 #define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_MVENDORID	0
 #define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_MARCHID	1
 #define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_MIMPID	2
+#define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR	3
+#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA	(1 << 0)
+#define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0	4
+#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_FD		(1 << 0)
+#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C		(1 << 1)
 /* Increase RISCV_HWPROBE_MAX_KEY when adding items. */
 
 #endif
diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c
index 981d23457f13..1c118438b1b3 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ 
 #include <asm/cacheflush.h>
 #include <asm/hwprobe.h>
 #include <asm/sbi.h>
+#include <asm/switch_to.h>
 #include <asm/uaccess.h>
 #include <asm/unistd.h>
 #include <asm-generic/mman-common.h>
@@ -125,6 +126,25 @@  static void hwprobe_one_pair(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair,
 	case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_MIMPID:
 		hwprobe_arch_id(pair, cpus);
 		break;
+	/*
+	 * The kernel already assumes that the base single-letter ISA
+	 * extensions are supported on all harts, and only supports the
+	 * IMA base, so just cheat a bit here and tell that to
+	 * userspace.
+	 */
+	case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR:
+		pair->value = RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA;
+		break;
+
+	case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0:
+		pair->value = 0;
+		if (has_fpu())
+			pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_FD;
+
+		if (elf_hwcap & RISCV_ISA_EXT_c)
+			pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C;
+
+		break;
 
 	/*
 	 * For forward compatibility, unknown keys don't fail the whole