[PATCH 1/2] riscv: track effective hardware PTE A/D updates

[Conor Dooley]

On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 10:05:21PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On 19/5/2026 13:19, Yunhui Cui wrote:
> > Separate Svadu capability discovery from the host's effective ADUE
> > state. Enable SBI FWFT PTE A/D hardware updating on each online CPU
> > through CPUHP when both Svade and Svadu are present, use the resulting
> > runtime state for arch_has_hw_pte_young(), and fall back to
> > software-managed A/D updates when enabling the feature fails.
> > 
> > Platforms with Svadu but without Svade are treated as always using
> > hardware PTE A/D updates. Expose the runtime state through an inline
> > getter so hot MM paths avoid an out-of-line function call.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean here. The current code doesn't use an out-of-line
> function call AFAICS? More comments below ...
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Yunhui Cui <cuiyunhui at bytedance.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Qingwei Hu <qingwei.hu at bytedance.com>
> > ---
> >   arch/riscv/include/asm/cpufeature.h |  6 +++
> >   arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h    |  8 ++--
> >   arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c      | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >   3 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> > index 739fcc84bf7b2..877d71a1ea755 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> > @@ -128,6 +128,12 @@ struct riscv_isa_ext_data {
> >   extern const struct riscv_isa_ext_data riscv_isa_ext[];
> >   extern const size_t riscv_isa_ext_count;
> >   extern bool riscv_isa_fallback;
> > +extern bool riscv_hw_pte_ad_updating_enabled;
> > +
> > +static __always_inline bool riscv_has_hw_pte_ad_updating(void)
> > +{
> > +	return READ_ONCE(riscv_hw_pte_ad_updating_enabled);
> > +}
> >   unsigned long riscv_isa_extension_base(const unsigned long *isa_bitmap);
> >   static __always_inline bool riscv_cpu_has_extension_likely(int cpu, const unsigned long ext)
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
> > index a1a7c6520a095..20663a466cf6c 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h
> > @@ -732,14 +732,14 @@ static inline pgprot_t pgprot_writecombine(pgprot_t _prot)
> >   #define pgprot_dmacoherent pgprot_writecombine
> >   /*
> > - * Both Svade and Svadu control the hardware behavior when the PTE A/D bits need to be set. By
> > - * default the M-mode firmware enables the hardware updating scheme when only Svadu is present in
> > - * DT.
> > + * Both Svade and Svadu control the hardware behavior when the PTE A/D bits
> > + * need to be set. The core MM code only cares whether hardware updating of
> > + * the accessed/dirty state is currently active.
> >    */
> >   #define arch_has_hw_pte_young arch_has_hw_pte_young
> >   static inline bool arch_has_hw_pte_young(void)
> >   {
> > -	return riscv_has_extension_unlikely(RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVADU);
> > +	return riscv_has_hw_pte_ad_updating();
> >   }
> 
> riscv_has_extension_unlikely() uses an asm alternative, ie. it's patched at
> boot so there's no runtime cost. But now you've changed it to just test a
> bool.
> 
> I'm not sure arch_has_hw_pte_young() is a particularly hot path, but seems
> like you could use a static key, so that the code is patched to avoid the
> runtime test?
> 
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > index f46aa5602d74d..e46b2d2b49eed 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@
> >   static bool any_cpu_has_zicboz;
> >   static bool any_cpu_has_zicbop;
> >   static bool any_cpu_has_zicbom;
> > +bool riscv_hw_pte_ad_updating_enabled __read_mostly;
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(riscv_hw_pte_ad_updating_enabled);
> >   unsigned long elf_hwcap __read_mostly;
> > @@ -287,15 +289,74 @@ static int riscv_ext_zvfbfwma_validate(const struct riscv_isa_ext_data *data,
> ...
> > +static int __init riscv_hw_pte_ad_updating_init(void)
> > +{
> > +	bool has_svade, has_svadu;
> > +	int state;
> > +
> > +	has_svade = riscv_has_extension_unlikely(RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVADE);
> > +	has_svadu = riscv_has_extension_unlikely(RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVADU);
> > +
> > +	if (!has_svadu)
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	if (!has_svade) {
> > +		riscv_set_hw_pte_ad_updating(true);
> > +		pr_info("riscv: hardware PTE A/D updating enabled\n");
> > +		return 0;
> 
> This block is identical to the tail of the function. I'd probably use "goto
> enable", with an "enable" label below.

Is this code correct though? On DT systems, !svade && !svadu means we
don't actually know if it is hardware or software managed, so printing
that it's hardware managed may not be correct.

I don't understand the mm code enough to know if arch_has_hw_pte_young()
returning true is problematic too, but it probably is?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-riscv/attachments/20260519/8277bf84/attachment.sig>