Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-97096-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
From: Emil Renner Berthing <emil.renner.berthing@canonical.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240308-docile-pretense-b44c3a84d8b2@wendy>
References: <20240307-disable_misaligned_probe_config-v8-0-55d696cb398b@rivosinc.com>
 <20240307-disable_misaligned_probe_config-v8-4-55d696cb398b@rivosinc.com>
 <CAJM55Z9SYA=QMg0Wg-e0Q8nOTP6qSKkc+kxHMGOmmmWrEcVf7w@mail.gmail.com> <20240308-docile-pretense-b44c3a84d8b2@wendy>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 05:35:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJM55Z8EX5D0HZ1xKTkaQEL1RF46DrBynUoTSMP5q8kmDGY_=w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] riscv: Set unaligned access speed at compile time
To: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>, 
	Emil Renner Berthing <emil.renner.berthing@canonical.com>
Cc: Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>, Charlie Jenkins <charlie@rivosinc.com>, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>, 
	Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>, 
	Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@kernel.org>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>, 
	=?UTF-8?B?Q2zDqW1lbnQgTMOpZ2Vy?= <cleger@rivosinc.com>, 
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Charles Lohr <lohr85@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 01:52:24AM -0800, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
> > Charlie Jenkins wrote:
>
> > >  config RISCV_MISALIGNED
> > > -	bool "Support misaligned load/store traps for kernel and userspace"
> > > +	bool
> > >  	select SYSCTL_ARCH_UNALIGN_ALLOW
> > > -	default y
> > >  	help
> > > -	  Say Y here if you want the kernel to embed support for misaligned
> > > -	  load/store for both kernel and userspace. When disable, misaligned
> > > -	  accesses will generate SIGBUS in userspace and panic in kernel.
> > > +	  Embed support for misaligned load/store for both kernel and userspace.
> > > +	  When disabled, misaligned accesses will generate SIGBUS in userspace
> > > +	  and panic in the kernel.
> >
> > Hmm.. this is *may* generate SIGBUS in userspace and panic the kernel. The CPU
> > could support unaligned access natively or there might be a handler in M-mode,
> > right?
>
> Correct. The last sentence could become "When disabled, and there is no
> support in hardware or firmware, unsigned accesses will...". That said,
> this option is no longer user visible, so we could really simplify the
> hell out of this option to just mention that it controls building the
> in-kernel emulator.
>
> > > +choice
> > > +	prompt "Unaligned Accesses Support"
> > > +	default RISCV_PROBE_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
> > > +	help
> > > +	  This determines the level of support for unaligned accesses. This
> > > +	  information is used by the kernel to perform optimizations. It is also
> > > +	  exposed to user space via the hwprobe syscall. The hardware will be
> > > +	  probed at boot by default.
> > > +
> > > +config RISCV_PROBE_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
> > > +	bool "Probe for hardware unaligned access support"
> > > +	select RISCV_MISALIGNED
> > > +	help
> > > +	  During boot, the kernel will run a series of tests to determine the
> > > +	  speed of unaligned accesses. This probing will dynamically determine
> > > +	  the speed of unaligned accesses on the underlying system. If unaligned
> > > +	  memory accesses trap into the kernel as they are not supported by the
> > > +	  system, the kernel will emulate the unaligned accesses to preserve the
> > > +	  UABI.
> > > +
> > > +config RISCV_EMULATED_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
> > > +	bool "Emulate unaligned access where system support is missing"
> > > +	select RISCV_MISALIGNED
> > > +	help
> > > +	  If unaligned memory accesses trap into the kernel as they are not
> > > +	  supported by the system, the kernel will emulate the unaligned
> > > +	  accesses to preserve the UABI. When the underlying system does support
> > > +	  unaligned accesses, the unaligned accesses are assumed to be slow.
> >
> > It's still not quite clear to me when you'd want to choose this over probing
> > above. Assuming the probe measures correctly this can only result in a kernel
> > that behaves the same or slower than with the option above, right?
>
> Aye, mostly the same - some people don't want the boot-time overhead
> of actually running the profiling code, so this option is for them.
> Maybe that's not such a big deal anymore with the improvements to do it
> in parallel, but given how bad performance on some of the systems is
> when firmware does the emulation, it is definitely still noticeable.
> I know we definitely have customers that care about their boot time very
> strongly, so I can imagine they'd be turning this off.

Ah, that makes sense. So maybe a help text more along the lines of "Disable
probing and optimizations for CPUs with fast unaligned memory access" would be
a better description of this choice?

> > > +
> > > +config RISCV_SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
> > > +	bool "Assume the system supports slow unaligned memory accesses"
> > > +	depends on NONPORTABLE
> > > +	help
> > > +	  Assume that the system supports slow unaligned memory accesses. The
> > > +	  kernel and userspace programs may not be able to run at all on systems
> > > +	  that do not support unaligned memory accesses.
> >
> > Again you're just explicitly saying no to the optimizations the kernel might do
> > if it detects fast unaligned access, only here you'll also crash if they're not
> > handled by the CPU or M-mode. Why would you want that?
> >
> > I'm probably missing something, but the only reason I can think of is if you
> > want build a really small kernel and save the few bytes for the handler and
> > probing code.
>
> Aye, just to allow you to disable the in-kernel emulator. That's
> currently a choice that is presented to people, so this option preserves
> that. IMO this is by far the least useful option and is locked behind
> NONPORTABLE anyway. Maybe we could delete it, and if someone really wants
> it, it would not be all that much of a hassle to add back in the future?

Yeah, if noone really needs this less config options is better, but I don't
feel strongly about this option either way.

/Emil