[v2,2/3] RISC-V: resort all extensions in consistent orders
Commit Message
Ordering between each and every list of extensions is wildly
inconsistent. Per discussion on the lists pick the following policy:
- The array defining order in /proc/cpuinfo follows a narrow
interpretation of the ISA specifications, described in a comment
immediately presiding it.
- All other lists of extensions are sorted alphabetically.
This will hopefully allow for easier review & future additions, and
reduce conflicts between patchsets as the number of extensions grows.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221129144742.2935581-2-conor.dooley@microchip.com/
Suggested-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu>
Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
---
arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h | 12 +++++++-----
arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c | 4 ++--
arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 6 ++++--
3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Comments
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 02:45:25PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> Ordering between each and every list of extensions is wildly
> inconsistent. Per discussion on the lists pick the following policy:
>
> - The array defining order in /proc/cpuinfo follows a narrow
> interpretation of the ISA specifications, described in a comment
> immediately presiding it.
>
> - All other lists of extensions are sorted alphabetically.
>
> This will hopefully allow for easier review & future additions, and
> reduce conflicts between patchsets as the number of extensions grows.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221129144742.2935581-2-conor.dooley@microchip.com/
> Suggested-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
> Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu>
> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> ---
> arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h | 12 +++++++-----
> arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c | 4 ++--
> arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 6 ++++--
> 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> index b22525290073..ce522aad641a 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> @@ -51,14 +51,15 @@ extern unsigned long elf_hwcap;
> * RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX. 0-25 range is reserved for single letter
> * extensions while all the multi-letter extensions should define the next
> * available logical extension id.
> + * Entries are sorted alphabetically.
> */
> enum riscv_isa_ext_id {
> RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF = RISCV_ISA_EXT_BASE,
> + RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC,
> + RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL,
> RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVPBMT,
> RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM,
> RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE,
> - RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC,
> - RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL,
> RISCV_ISA_EXT_ID_MAX = RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX,
Hi Conor,
I'm digging this back up because I'm basing Zicboz on it.
If we take "riscv: improve boot time isa extensions handling", then this
becomes a bunch of manually enumerated defines
#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF 26
#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVPBMT 27
#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM 28
#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE 29
#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC 30
#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL 31
Keeping those in alphabetical order would either require manually
reenumerating them or to allow the numbers to be out of order as
we add more extensions. I think I'd prefer we just add new
extensions at the bottom and keep the numbers in order.
Thanks,
drew
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 02:56:32PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> Hi Conor,
>
> I'm digging this back up because I'm basing Zicboz on it.
>
> If we take "riscv: improve boot time isa extensions handling", then this
> becomes a bunch of manually enumerated defines
>
> #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF 26
> #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVPBMT 27
> #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM 28
> #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE 29
> #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC 30
> #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL 31
>
> Keeping those in alphabetical order would either require manually
> reenumerating them or to allow the numbers to be out of order as
> we add more extensions. I think I'd prefer we just add new
> extensions at the bottom and keep the numbers in order.
Yes. I mentioned that on one of the earlier versions of Jisheng's
patchset - initially I blindly said "alphabetical please".
I quickly realised that that was a really stupid idea as it is would
just be an _invitiation_ for bugs if we did, since names are far more
easily searchable than figuring out the max in the manual enumeration.
Since Jisheng's patchset just deleted what I had resorted, I left this
change as-was. Just need to make sure any comment about ordering also
gets removed when the enum goes away.
I'll keep an eye on for-next to make sure that it does.
TL;DR I agree!
Thanks,
Conor.
@@ -51,14 +51,15 @@ extern unsigned long elf_hwcap;
* RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX. 0-25 range is reserved for single letter
* extensions while all the multi-letter extensions should define the next
* available logical extension id.
+ * Entries are sorted alphabetically.
*/
enum riscv_isa_ext_id {
RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF = RISCV_ISA_EXT_BASE,
+ RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC,
+ RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL,
RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVPBMT,
RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM,
RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE,
- RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC,
- RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL,
RISCV_ISA_EXT_ID_MAX = RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX,
};
@@ -66,11 +67,12 @@ enum riscv_isa_ext_id {
* This enum represents the logical ID for each RISC-V ISA extension static
* keys. We can use static key to optimize code path if some ISA extensions
* are available.
+ * Entries are sorted alphabetically.
*/
enum riscv_isa_ext_key {
RISCV_ISA_EXT_KEY_FPU, /* For 'F' and 'D' */
- RISCV_ISA_EXT_KEY_ZIHINTPAUSE,
RISCV_ISA_EXT_KEY_SVINVAL,
+ RISCV_ISA_EXT_KEY_ZIHINTPAUSE,
RISCV_ISA_EXT_KEY_MAX,
};
@@ -90,10 +92,10 @@ static __always_inline int riscv_isa_ext2key(int num)
return RISCV_ISA_EXT_KEY_FPU;
case RISCV_ISA_EXT_d:
return RISCV_ISA_EXT_KEY_FPU;
- case RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE:
- return RISCV_ISA_EXT_KEY_ZIHINTPAUSE;
case RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL:
return RISCV_ISA_EXT_KEY_SVINVAL;
+ case RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE:
+ return RISCV_ISA_EXT_KEY_ZIHINTPAUSE;
default:
return -EINVAL;
}
@@ -185,12 +185,12 @@ arch_initcall(riscv_cpuinfo_init);
* New entries to this struct should follow the ordering rules described above.
*/
static struct riscv_isa_ext_data isa_ext_arr[] = {
+ __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM),
+ __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zihintpause, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE),
__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sscofpmf, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF),
__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sstc, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC),
__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svinval, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL),
__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svpbmt, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVPBMT),
- __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM),
- __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zihintpause, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE),
__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA("", RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX),
};
@@ -199,12 +199,13 @@ void __init riscv_fill_hwcap(void)
this_hwcap |= isa2hwcap[(unsigned char)(*ext)];
set_bit(*ext - 'a', this_isa);
} else {
+ /* sorted alphabetically */
SET_ISA_EXT_MAP("sscofpmf", RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF);
+ SET_ISA_EXT_MAP("sstc", RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC);
+ SET_ISA_EXT_MAP("svinval", RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL);
SET_ISA_EXT_MAP("svpbmt", RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVPBMT);
SET_ISA_EXT_MAP("zicbom", RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM);
SET_ISA_EXT_MAP("zihintpause", RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE);
- SET_ISA_EXT_MAP("sstc", RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC);
- SET_ISA_EXT_MAP("svinval", RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL);
}
#undef SET_ISA_EXT_MAP
}
@@ -284,6 +285,7 @@ static bool __init_or_module cpufeature_probe_zicbom(unsigned int stage)
* This code may also be executed before kernel relocation, so we cannot use
* addresses generated by the address-of operator as they won't be valid in
* this context.
+ * Tests, unless otherwise required, are to be added in alphabetical order.
*/
static u32 __init_or_module cpufeature_probe(unsigned int stage)
{