[PATCH v4] RISC-V: Show accurate per-hart isa in /proc/cpuinfo

[Evan Green]

On Sat, Aug 26, 2023 at 1:01 AM Andrew Jones <ajones at ventanamicro.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 03:51:28PM -0700, Evan Green wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 1:16 AM Andrew Jones <ajones at ventanamicro.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 03:06:53PM -0700, Evan Green wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 10:29 AM Conor Dooley <conor at kernel.org> wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > > Do you want to have this new thing in cpuinfo tell the user "this hart
> > > > > has xyz extensions that are supported by a kernel, but maybe not this
> > > > > kernel" or to tell the user "this hart has xyz extensions that are
> > > > > supported by this kernel"? Your text above says "understood by the
> > > > > kernel", but I think that's a poor definition that needs to be improved
> > > > > to spell out exactly what you mean. IOW does "understood" mean the
> > > > > kernel will parse them into a structure, or does it mean "yes you can
> > > > > use this extension on this particular hart".
> > > >
> > > > I'm imagining /proc/cpuinfo being closer to "the CPU has it and the
> > > > kernel at least vaguely understands it, but may not have full support
> > > > for it enabled". I'm assuming /proc/cpuinfo is mostly used by 1)
> > > > humans wanting to know if they have hardware support for a feature,
> > > > and 2) administrators collecting telemetry to manage fleets (ie do I
> > > > have any hardware deployed that supports X).
> > >
> > > Is (2) a special case of (1)? (I want to make sure I understand all the
> > > cases.)
> >
> > More or less, yes. In bucket two are also folks wondering things like
> > "are all these crash reports I'm getting specific to machines with X".
> >
> > >
> > > > Programmers looking to
> > > > see "is the kernel support for this feature ready right now" would
> > > > ideally not be parsing /proc/cpuinfo text, as more direct mechanisms
> > > > like specific hwprobe bits for "am I fully ready to go" would be
> > > > easier to work with. Feel free to yell at me if this overall vision
> > > > seems flawed.
> > > >
> > > > I tried to look to see if there was consensus among the other
> > > > architectures. Aarch64 seems to go with "supported and fully enabled",
> > > > as their cpu_has_feature() directly tests elf_hwcap, and elements in
> > > > arm64_elf_hwcaps[] are Kconfig gated. X86 is complicated, but IIRC is
> > > > more along the lines of "hardware has it". They have two macros,
> > > > cpu_has() for "raw capability" and cpu_feature_enabled() for "kernel
> > > > can do it too", and they use cpu_has() for /proc/cpuinfo flags.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'd lean more towards the way AArch64 goes, because, unless /proc/cpuinfo
> > > is just a blind regurgitation of an isa string from DT / ACPI, then the
> > > kernel must at least know something about it. Advertising a feature which
> > > is known, but also known not to work, seems odd to me. So my vote is that
> > > only features which are present and enabled in the kernel or present and
> > > not necessary to be enabled in the kernel in order for userspace or
> > > virtual machines to use be advertised in /proc/cpuinfo.
> > >
> > > We still have SMBIOS (dmidecode) to blindly dump what the hardware
> > > supports for cases (1) and (2) above.
> >
> > Yeah, there's an argument to be made for that. My worry is it's a
> > difficult line to hold. The bar you're really trying to describe (or
> > at least what people might take away from it) is "if it's listed here
> > then it's fully ready to be used in userspace". But then things get
> > squishy when there are additional ways to control the use of the
> > feature (prctls() in init to turn it on, usermode policy to turn it
> > off, security doodads that disable it, etc). I'm assuming nobody wants
> > a version of /proc/cpuinfo that changes depending on which process is
> > asking. So then the line would have to be more carefully described as
> > "well, the hardware can do it, and the kernel COULD do it under some
> > circumstances, but YMMV", which ends up falling somewhat short of the
> > original goal. In my mind keeping /proc/cpuinfo as close to "here's
> > what the hardware can do" seems like a more defensible position.
> > -Evan
>
> I agree with that. I was actually even trying to say the same thing,
> but only by bringing up virtual machines. Once we decide we'll expose
> extensions to VMs, whether or not the host kernel enables them, then
> none of the other host kernel configurations matter with respect to
> advertising the feature, since the guest kernel may have a completely
> different set of configurations.

My head spins a little when I try to picture a feature which 1)
requires kernel support to use, 2) has that kernel support turned off
in the host kernel, but 3) is passed down into guest kernels.
Generally though, I agree that trying to tie the guarantees of
features in /proc/cpuinfo too much to software gets confusing when
viewed through the double lens of virtualization.

>
> So I think we should only be filtering out extensions that are disabled
> because they're broken (have a detected erratum), have been "hidden"
> (have a kernel command line allowing them to be treated as if not
> present), or cannot be used at all due to missing accompanying hardware
> descriptions (such as block size info for CBO extensions). In all cases,
> I presume we'd wire checks up in riscv_isa_extension_check() and no
> checks would be gated on Kconfigs or anything else. And, since
> /proc/cpuinfo gets its list from the bitmap that's already filtered by
> riscv_isa_extension_check(), then, long story short, we're good to go :-)
>
> But maybe we can try to spell that policy out a bit more in
> Documentation/riscv/uabi.rst.

Right, that sounds reasonable to me, and is consistent with the
behavior we already have. With this documentation change I was only
trying to define the lower bound, rather than the complete definition
for every case. In other words, seeing a feature in cpuinfo guarantees
only that the hardware (or virtualized hardware) supports the feature,
but that's all the language says. So for instance NOT seeing a feature
in cpuinfo doesn't necessarily mean the hardware doesn't support it.
Software turning it off for the reasons you describe IMO doesn't
contradict what's written here. I was planning to leave that tacit,
but if you have suggestions on how to spell that out I'd take them.

-Evan