Hi Dave,
On 4/26/19 4:31 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 04:06:02PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 26/04/2019 15:52, Dave Martin wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 03:37:40PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
When the kernel is compiled with CONFIG_KERNEL_MODE_NEON, some part of
the kernel may be able to use FPSIMD/SVE. This is for instance the case
for crypto code.
Any use of FPSIMD/SVE in the kernel are clearly marked by using the
function kernel_neon_{begin, end}. Furthermore, this can only be used
when may_use_simd() returns true.
The current implementation of may_use_simd() allows softirq to use
FPSIMD/SVE unless it is currently in use (i.e kernel_neon_busy is true).
When in use, softirqs usually fall back to a software method.
At the moment, as a softirq may use FPSIMD/SVE, softirqs are disabled
when touching the FPSIMD/SVE context. This has the drawback to disable
all softirqs even if they are not using FPSIMD/SVE.
Since a softirq is supposed to check may_use_simd() anyway before
attempting to use FPSIMD/SVE, there is limited reason to keep softirq
disabled when touching the FPSIMD/SVE context. Instead, we can simply
disable preemption and mark the FPSIMD/SVE context as in use by setting
CPU's kernel_neon_busy flag.
fpsimd_context_busy?
Yes.
Two new helpers {get, put}_cpu_fpsimd_context is introduced to mark the
area using FPSIMD/SVE context and uses them in replacement of
Paragraph mangled during edit?
Possibly, I will update it.
-> "are introduced ... and they are used to replace ..."
local_bh_{disable, enable}. The functions kernel_neon_{begin, end} are
also re-implemented to use the new helpers.
Additionally, double-underscored versions of the helpers are provided to
be used in function called with interrupt masked. They are used for
sanity and also help to mark place where the FPSIMD context can be
manipulate freely.
For the benefit of other readers, this should be more explicit. Also,
the distinction between the normal and __ helpers is that the latter
can be caller with preemption disabled.
To clarify the impact, we can say something like
"These are only relevant on paths where irqs are disabled anyway, so
they are not needed for correctness in the current code. Let's use them
anyway though: this marks the critical sections clearly and will help
to avoid mistakes during future maintenance."
How about the following commit message?
arm64/fpsimd: Don't disable softirq when touching FPSIMD/SVE state
When the kernel is compiled with CONFIG_KERNEL_MODE_NEON, some part of
the kernel may be able to use FPSIMD/SVE. This is for instance the case
for crypto code.
Any use of FPSIMD/SVE in the kernel are clearly marked by using the
function kernel_neon_{begin, end}. Furthermore, this can only be used
when may_use_simd() returns true.
The current implementation of may_use_simd() allows softirq to use
FPSIMD/SVE unless it is currently in use (i.e kernel_neon_busy is true).
When in use, softirqs usually fall back to a software method.
At the moment, as a softirq may use FPSIMD/SVE, softirqs are disabled
when touching the FPSIMD/SVE context. This has the drawback to disable
all softirqs even if they are not using FPSIMD/SVE.
Since a softirq is supposed to check may_use_simd() anyway before
attempting to use FPSIMD/SVE, there is limited reason to keep softirq
disabled when touching the FPSIMD/SVE context. Instead, we can simply
disable preemption and mark the FPSIMD/SVE context as in use by setting
CPU's fpsimd_context_busy flag.
Two new helpers {get, put}_cpu_fpsimd_context are introduced to mark
the area using FPSIMD/SVE context and they are used to replace
local_bh_{disable, enable}. The functions kernel_neon_{begin, end} are
also re-implemented to use the new helpers.
Additionally, double-underscored versions of the helpers are provided to
called when preemption is already disabled. These are only relevant on
paths where irqs are disabled anyway, so they are not needed for
correctness in the current code. Let's use them anyway though: this
marks critical sections clearly and will help to avoid mistakes during
future maintenance.
Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.mar...@arm.com>
(For the diff as well as the commit message, obviously.)
Thank you! I will resend the series once rc1 has been cut.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
