[RFC PATCH 3/5] RISC-V: hwprobe: Introduce which-cpus flag
Andrew Jones
ajones at ventanamicro.com
Mon Sep 25 05:14:11 PDT 2023
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 04:23:32AM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 05:55:22 PDT (-0700), ajones at ventanamicro.com wrote:
> > Introduce the first flag for the hwprobe syscall. The flag basically
> > reverses its behavior, i.e. instead of populating the values of keys
> > for a given set of cpus, the set of cpus after the call is the result
> > of finding a set which supports the values of the keys. In order to
> > do this, we implement pair merge and pair compare functions which
> > take the type of value (a single value vs. a bitmap of booleans) into
> > consideration. The flow for the which-cpus syscall variant is as
> > follows:
> >
> > 1. Merge pairs into a set of pairs with unique keys
> > 2. If any unknown keys are seen, return an empty set of cpus
> > 3. If the platform is homogeneous, then check all the pairs
> > against the "all cpu" values and return early
> > 4. Otherwise, check all the pairs against each cpu individually
>
> IIRC we talked about this in the patchwork call at some point, but IMO this
> feature makes sense and you weren't the first person to bring up having
> something like this. So I think at a high level it's completely reasonable,
> some implementation comments follow.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <ajones at ventanamicro.com>
> > ---
> > Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst | 16 ++-
> > arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h | 3 +
> > arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c | 148 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 3 files changed, 163 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst b/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst
> > index 132e9acaa8f4..97b1e97e7dd2 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst
> > @@ -25,8 +25,20 @@ arch, impl), the returned value will only be valid if all CPUs in the given set
> > have the same value. Otherwise -1 will be returned. For boolean-like keys, the
> > value returned will be a logical AND of the values for the specified CPUs.
> > Usermode can supply NULL for ``cpus`` and 0 for ``cpusetsize`` as a shortcut for
> > -all online CPUs. There are currently no flags, this value must be zero for
> > -future compatibility.
> > +all online CPUs. The currently supported flags are:
> > +
> > +* :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_WHICH_CPUS`: This flag basically reverses the behavior
> > + of sys_riscv_hwprobe(). Instead of populating the values of keys for a given
> > + set of CPUs, the set of CPUs is initially all unset and the values of each key
> > + are given. Upon return, the CPUs which all match each of the given key-value
> > + pairs are set in ``cpus``. How matching is done depends on the key type. For
>
> Kind of a meta-comment here, but we should add the key type to each key
> number in the docs. I suppose maybe it should be obvious which is which
> from the meaning of the keys, but can't hurt to be explicit about it.
I'll add for v1.
>
> > + value-like keys, matching means to be the exact same as the value. For
> > + boolean-like keys, matching means the result of a logical AND of the pair's
> > + value with the CPU's value is exactly the same as the pair's value. ``cpus``
> > + may also initially have set bits, in which case the bits of any CPUs which do
> > + not match the pairs will be cleared, but no other bits will be set.
> > +
> > +All other flags are reserved for future compatibility and must be zero.
> >
> > On success 0 is returned, on failure a negative error code is returned.
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h b/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h
> > index 86d08a0e617b..36683307c3e4 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h
> > @@ -40,4 +40,7 @@ struct riscv_hwprobe {
> > #define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_ZICBOZ_BLOCK_SIZE 6
> > /* Increase RISCV_HWPROBE_MAX_KEY when adding items. */
> >
> > +/* Flags */
> > +#define RISCV_HWPROBE_WHICH_CPUS (1 << 0)
> > +
> > #endif
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c
> > index 14b6dfaa5d9f..c70a72fe6aee 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c
> > @@ -245,14 +245,145 @@ static void hwprobe_one_pair(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair,
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +static bool hwprobe_key_is_map(__s64 key)
> > +{
> > + switch (key) {
> > + case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR:
> > + case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0:
> > + case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_CPUPERF_0:
> > + return true;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return false;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int hwprobe_pair_merge(struct riscv_hwprobe *to,
> > + struct riscv_hwprobe *from)
> > +{
> > + if (to->key != from->key)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + if (hwprobe_key_is_map(to->key)) {
> > + to->value |= from->value;
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return to->value == from->value ? 0 : -EINVAL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static bool hwprobe_pair_cmp(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair,
> > + struct riscv_hwprobe *other_pair)
> > +{
> > + if (pair->key != other_pair->key)
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + if (hwprobe_key_is_map(pair->key))
> > + return (pair->value & other_pair->value) == other_pair->value;
> > +
> > + return pair->value == other_pair->value;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int hwprobe_which_cpus(struct riscv_hwprobe __user *pairs_user,
> > + size_t pair_count, size_t cpusetsize,
> > + cpumask_t *cpus)
> > +{
> > + struct riscv_hwprobe pairs[RISCV_HWPROBE_MAX_KEY + 1] = {
> > + [0 ... RISCV_HWPROBE_MAX_KEY] = (struct riscv_hwprobe){ .key = -1 }
> > + };
> > + struct riscv_hwprobe pair;
> > + struct vdso_data *vd = __arch_get_k_vdso_data();
> > + struct arch_vdso_data *avd = &vd->arch_data;
> > + bool clear_all = false;
> > + cpumask_t one_cpu;
> > + int cpu, ret;
> > + size_t i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < pair_count; i++) {
> > + ret = copy_from_user(&pair, &pairs_user[i], sizeof(pair));
> > + if (ret)
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > +
> > + if (pair.key >= 0 && pair.key <= RISCV_HWPROBE_MAX_KEY) {
> > + if (pairs[pair.key].key == -1) {
> > + pairs[pair.key] = pair;
> > + } else {
> > + ret = hwprobe_pair_merge(&pairs[pair.key], &pair);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > + } else {
> > + pair.key = -1;
> > + pair.value = 0;
> > + ret = copy_to_user(&pairs_user[i], &pair, sizeof(pair));
> > + if (ret)
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > + clear_all = true;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (clear_all) {
> > + cpumask_clear(cpus);
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (avd->homogeneous_cpus) {
> > + for (i = 0; i <= RISCV_HWPROBE_MAX_KEY; i++) {
> > + if (pairs[i].key == -1)
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + pair.key = pairs[i].key;
> > + pair.value = avd->all_cpu_hwprobe_values[pairs[i].key];
> > +
> > + if (!hwprobe_pair_cmp(&pair, &pairs[i])) {
> > + cpumask_clear(cpus);
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > + cpumask_clear(&one_cpu);
> > +
> > + for_each_cpu(cpu, cpus) {
> > + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &one_cpu);
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i <= RISCV_HWPROBE_MAX_KEY; i++) {
> > + if (pairs[i].key == -1)
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + pair.key = pairs[i].key;
> > + pair.value = 0;
> > + hwprobe_one_pair(&pair, &one_cpu);
> > +
> > + if (!hwprobe_pair_cmp(&pair, &pairs[i])) {
> > + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, cpus);
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &one_cpu);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > static int do_riscv_hwprobe(struct riscv_hwprobe __user *pairs,
> > size_t pair_count, size_t cpusetsize,
> > unsigned long __user *cpus_user,
> > unsigned int flags)
> > {
> > + bool which_cpus = false;
> > + cpumask_t cpus;
> > size_t out;
> > int ret;
> > - cpumask_t cpus;
> > +
> > + if (flags & RISCV_HWPROBE_WHICH_CPUS) {
> > + if (!cpusetsize || !cpus_user)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + flags &= ~RISCV_HWPROBE_WHICH_CPUS;
> > + which_cpus = true;
> > + }
> >
> > /* Check the reserved flags. */
> > if (flags != 0)
> > @@ -274,11 +405,24 @@ static int do_riscv_hwprobe(struct riscv_hwprobe __user *pairs,
> > if (ret)
> > return -EFAULT;
> >
> > + cpumask_and(&cpus, &cpus, cpu_online_mask);
> > +
> > + if (which_cpus) {
> > + if (cpumask_empty(&cpus))
> > + cpumask_copy(&cpus, cpu_online_mask);
> > + ret = hwprobe_which_cpus(pairs, pair_count, cpusetsize, &cpus);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + ret = copy_to_user(cpus_user, &cpus, cpusetsize);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > /*
> > * Userspace must provide at least one online CPU, without that
> > * there's no way to define what is supported.
> > */
> > - cpumask_and(&cpus, &cpus, cpu_online_mask);
> > if (cpumask_empty(&cpus))
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
I think the rest of the comments ended up in a separate mail. Hopefully
none got lost.
Thanks,
drew
More information about the linux-riscv
mailing list