[RFC PATCH v8 09/21] riscv: Add task switch support for vector
Ley Foon Tan
lftan.linux at gmail.com
Thu Sep 30 19:46:20 PDT 2021
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 11:54 PM Darius Rad <darius at bluespec.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 10:56:52PM +0800, Greentime Hu wrote:
> > Darius Rad <darius at bluespec.com> 於 2021年9月13日 週一 下午8:21寫道：
> > >
> > > On 9/8/21 1:45 PM, Greentime Hu wrote:
> > > > This patch adds task switch support for vector. It supports partial lazy
> > > > save and restore mechanism. It also supports all lengths of vlen.
> > > >
> > > > [guoren at linux.alibaba.com: First available porting to support vector
> > > > context switching]
> > > > [nick.knight at sifive.com: Rewrite vector.S to support dynamic vlen, xlen and
> > > > code refine]
> > > > [vincent.chen at sifive.co: Fix the might_sleep issue in vstate_save,
> > > > vstate_restore]
> > > > Co-developed-by: Nick Knight <nick.knight at sifive.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Nick Knight <nick.knight at sifive.com>
> > > > Co-developed-by: Guo Ren <guoren at linux.alibaba.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren at linux.alibaba.com>
> > > > Co-developed-by: Vincent Chen <vincent.chen at sifive.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Vincent Chen <vincent.chen at sifive.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Greentime Hu <greentime.hu at sifive.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/riscv/include/asm/switch_to.h | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > arch/riscv/kernel/Makefile | 1 +
> > > > arch/riscv/kernel/process.c | 38 ++++++++++++++
> > > > arch/riscv/kernel/vector.S | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 4 files changed, 189 insertions(+)
> > > > create mode 100644 arch/riscv/kernel/vector.S
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/switch_to.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/switch_to.h
> > > > index ec83770b3d98..de0573dad78f 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/switch_to.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/switch_to.h
> > > > @@ -7,10 +7,12 @@
> > > > #define _ASM_RISCV_SWITCH_TO_H
> > > >
> > > > #include <linux/jump_label.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/slab.h>
> > > > #include <linux/sched/task_stack.h>
> > > > #include <asm/processor.h>
> > > > #include <asm/ptrace.h>
> > > > #include <asm/csr.h>
> > > > +#include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
> > > >
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_FPU
> > > > extern void __fstate_save(struct task_struct *save_to);
> > > > @@ -68,6 +70,68 @@ static __always_inline bool has_fpu(void) { return false; }
> > > > #define __switch_to_fpu(__prev, __next) do { } while (0)
> > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_VECTOR
> > > > +extern bool has_vector;
> > > > +extern unsigned long riscv_vsize;
> > > > +extern void __vstate_save(struct __riscv_v_state *save_to, void *datap);
> > > > +extern void __vstate_restore(struct __riscv_v_state *restore_from, void *datap);
> > > > +
> > > > +static inline void __vstate_clean(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > > +{
> > > > + regs->status = (regs->status & ~(SR_VS)) | SR_VS_CLEAN;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static inline void vstate_off(struct task_struct *task,
> > > > + struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > > +{
> > > > + regs->status = (regs->status & ~SR_VS) | SR_VS_OFF;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static inline void vstate_save(struct task_struct *task,
> > > > + struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if ((regs->status & SR_VS) == SR_VS_DIRTY) {
> > > > + struct __riscv_v_state *vstate = &(task->thread.vstate);
> > > > +
> > > > + __vstate_save(vstate, vstate->datap);
> > > > + __vstate_clean(regs);
> > > > + }
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static inline void vstate_restore(struct task_struct *task,
> > > > + struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if ((regs->status & SR_VS) != SR_VS_OFF) {
> > > > + struct __riscv_v_state *vstate = &(task->thread.vstate);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Allocate space for vector registers. */
> > > > + if (!vstate->datap) {
> > > > + vstate->datap = kzalloc(riscv_vsize, GFP_ATOMIC);
> > > > + vstate->size = riscv_vsize;
> > > > + }
> > > > + __vstate_restore(vstate, vstate->datap);
> > > > + __vstate_clean(regs);
> > > > + }
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static inline void __switch_to_vector(struct task_struct *prev,
> > > > + struct task_struct *next)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct pt_regs *regs;
> > > > +
> > > > + regs = task_pt_regs(prev);
> > > > + if (unlikely(regs->status & SR_SD))
> > > > + vstate_save(prev, regs);
> > > > + vstate_restore(next, task_pt_regs(next));
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +#else
> > > > +#define has_vector false
> > > > +#define vstate_save(task, regs) do { } while (0)
> > > > +#define vstate_restore(task, regs) do { } while (0)
> > > > +#define __switch_to_vector(__prev, __next) do { } while (0)
> > > > +#endif
> > > > +
> > > > extern struct task_struct *__switch_to(struct task_struct *,
> > > > struct task_struct *);
> > > >
> > > > @@ -77,6 +141,8 @@ do { \
> > > > struct task_struct *__next = (next); \
> > > > if (has_fpu()) \
> > > > __switch_to_fpu(__prev, __next); \
> > > > + if (has_vector) \
> > > > + __switch_to_vector(__prev, __next); \
> > > > ((last) = __switch_to(__prev, __next)); \
> > > > } while (0)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/Makefile b/arch/riscv/kernel/Makefile
> > > > index 3397ddac1a30..344078080839 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/Makefile
> > > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/Makefile
> > > > @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MMU) += vdso.o vdso/
> > > >
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_RISCV_M_MODE) += traps_misaligned.o
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_FPU) += fpu.o
> > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_VECTOR) += vector.o
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_SMP) += smpboot.o
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_SMP) += smp.o
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_SMP) += cpu_ops.o
> > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/process.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/process.c
> > > > index 03ac3aa611f5..0b86e9e531c9 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/process.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/process.c
> > > > @@ -95,6 +95,16 @@ void start_thread(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long pc,
> > > > */
> > > > fstate_restore(current, regs);
> > > > }
> > > > +
> > > > + if (has_vector) {
> > > > + regs->status |= SR_VS_INITIAL;
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Restore the initial value to the vector register
> > > > + * before starting the user program.
> > > > + */
> > > > + vstate_restore(current, regs);
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > >
> > > So this will unconditionally enable vector instructions, and allocate
> > > memory for vector state, for all processes, regardless of whether vector
> > > instructions are used?
> > >
> >
> > Hi Darius,
> >
> > Yes, it will enable vector if has_vector() is true. The reason that we
> > choose to enable and allocate memory for user space program is because
> > we also implement some common functions in the glibc such as memcpy
> > vector version and it is called very often by every process. So that
> > we assume if the user program is running in a CPU with vector ISA
> > would like to use vector by default. If we disable it by default and
> > make it trigger the illegal instruction, that might be a burden since
> > almost every process will use vector glibc memcpy or something like
> > that.
>
> Do you have any evidence to support the assertion that almost every process
> would use vector operations? One could easily argue that the converse is
> true: no existing software uses the vector extension now, so most likely a
> process will not be using it.
>
> >
> > > Given the size of the vector state and potential power and performance
> > > implications of enabling the vector engine, it seems like this should
> > > treated similarly to Intel AMX on x86. The full discussion of that is
> > > here:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CALCETrW2QHa2TLvnUuVxAAheqcbSZ-5_WRXtDSAGcbG8N+gtdQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org/
> > >
> > > The cover letter for recent Intel AMX patches has a summary of the x86
> > > implementation:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210825155413.19673-1-chang.seok.bae@intel.com/
> > >
> > > If RISC-V were to adopt a similar approach, I think the significant
> > > points are:
> > >
> > > 1. A process (or thread) must specifically request the desire to use
> > > vector extensions (perhaps with some new arch_prctl() API),
> > >
> > > 2. The kernel is free to deny permission, perhaps based on
> > > administrative rules or for other reasons, and
> > >
> > > 3. If a process attempts to use vector extensions before doing the
> > > above, the process will die due to an illegal instruction.
> >
> > Thank you for sharing this, but I am not sure if we should treat
> > vector like AMX on x86. IMHO, compiler might generate code with vector
> > instructions automatically someday, maybe we should treat vector
> > extensions like other extensions.
> > If user knows the vector extension is supported in this CPU and he
> > would like to use it, it seems we should let user use it directly just
> > like other extensions.
> > If user don't know it exists or not, user should use the library API
> > transparently and let glibc or other library deal with it. The glibc
> > ifunc feature or multi-lib should be able to choose the correct
> > implementation.
>
> What makes me think that the vector extension should be treated like AMX is
> that they both (1) have a significant amount of architectural state, and
> (2) likely have a significant power and/or area impact on (non-emulated)
> designs.
>
> For example, I think it is possible, maybe even likely, that vector
> implementations will have one or more of the following behaviors:
>
> 1. A single vector unit shared among two or more harts,
>
> 2. Additional power consumption when the vector unit is enabled and idle
> versus not being enabled at all,
>
> 3. For a system which supports variable operating frequency, a reduction
> in the maximum frequency when the vector unit is enabled, and/or
>
> 4. The inability to enter low power states and/or delays to low power
> states transitions when the vector unit is enabled.
>
> None of the above constraints apply to more ordinary extensions like
> compressed or the various bit manipulation extensions.
>
> The discussion I linked to has some well reasoned arguments on why
> substantial extensions should have a mechanism to request using them by
> user space. The discussion was in the context of Intel AMX, but applies to
> further x86 extensions, and I think should also apply to similar extensions
> on RISC-V, like vector here.
>
There is possible use case where not all cores support vector
extension due to size, area and power.
Perhaps can have the mechanism or flow to determine the
application/thread require vector extension or it specifically request
the desire to use
vector extensions. Then this app/thread run on cpu with vector
extension capability only.
Thanks.
Regards
Ley Foon
More information about the linux-riscv
mailing list