[PATCH v2 14/28] arm64/sve: Backend logic for setting the vector length

[Alan Hayward]

> On 20 Sep 2017, at 12:09, Dave Martin <dave.martin at foss.arm.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:59:55AM +0000, Alan Hayward wrote:
>> (Resending without disclaimer)
>> 
>>> On 31 Aug 2017, at 18:00, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin at arm.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> +int sve_set_vector_length(struct task_struct *task,
>>> +			  unsigned long vl, unsigned long flags)
>>> +{
>>> +	WARN_ON(task == current && preemptible());
>>> +
>>> +	if (flags & ~(unsigned long)(PR_SVE_VL_INHERIT |
>>> +				     PR_SVE_SET_VL_ONEXEC))
>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> +	if (!sve_vl_valid(vl))
>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * Clamp to the maximum vector length that VL-agnostic SVE code can
>>> +	 * work with.  A flag may be assigned in the future to allow setting
>>> +	 * of larger vector lengths without confusing older software.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	if (vl > SVE_VL_ARCH_MAX)
>>> +		vl = SVE_VL_ARCH_MAX;
>>> +
>>> +	vl = find_supported_vector_length(vl);
>>> +
>> 
>> 
>> Given, sve_set_vector_length is called when setting the vector length in
>> PTRACE_SETREGSET, it looks to me like if you set VL to a value that’s not
>> supported by the hardware, then it’s going to round down to the previous value.
>> Is that correct? I’m not sure if that’s explained in the docs?
> 
> Does this cover it?
> 
> "On success, the calling thread's vector length is changed to the
> largest value supported by the system that is less than or equal to vl."
> 
> (For ptrace, I just cross-reference the PR_SVE_SET_VL behaviour, above.)

For ptrace is it worth mentioning user should do a GET after a SET to confirm
what VL value was actually set?

> 
>> What happens if you give a vl value lower than the min supported value in the
>> hardware?
> 
> This is impossible, unless vl < SVE_VL_MIN (which is rejected explicitly
> by the !sve_vl_valid() check in sve_set_vector_length()).
> 
> The architecture required support for all power-of-two vector lengths
> less than the maximum supported vector length, so by construction
> SVE_VL_MIN is supported by all hardware.

Ok, I’m happy with that.

> 
> To be defensive, if we fail to detect support for SVE_VL_MIN, I set the
> corresponding bit in sve_vq_map and WARN.  This is just to help ensure
> find_supported_vector_length doesn't fall off the end of sve_vq_map.
> 
> 
> Does that sounds correct?  There may be a clearer way of achieving this.
> 
> Cheers
> ---Dave
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> +/*
>>> + * All vector length selection from userspace comes through here.
>>> + * We're on a slow path, so some sanity-checks are included.
>>> + * If things go wrong there's a bug somewhere, but try to fall back to a
>>> + * safe choice.
>>> + */
>>> +static unsigned int find_supported_vector_length(unsigned int vl)
>>> +{
>>> +	int bit;
>>> +	int max_vl = sve_max_vl;
>>> +
>>> +	if (WARN_ON(!sve_vl_valid(vl)))
>>> +		vl = SVE_VL_MIN;
>>> +
>>> +	if (WARN_ON(!sve_vl_valid(max_vl)))
>>> +		max_vl = SVE_VL_MIN;
>>> +
>>> +	if (vl > max_vl)
>>> +		vl = max_vl;
>>> +
>>> +	bit = find_next_bit(sve_vq_map, SVE_VQ_MAX,
>>> +			    vq_to_bit(sve_vq_from_vl(vl)));
>>> +	return sve_vl_from_vq(bit_to_vq(bit));
>>> +}
>>> +
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alan.
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel