On 18/08/2020 10:25, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
Hi,
>> On 18 Aug 2020, at 10:14, André Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 18/08/2020 04:11, Wei Chen wrote:
>>
>> Hi Wei,
>>
>>> Xen has cpu_has_fp/cpu_has_simd to detect whether the CPU supports
>>> FP/SIMD or not. But currently, this two MACROs only consider value 0
>>> of ID_AA64PFR0_EL1.FP/SIMD as FP/SIMD features enabled. But for CPUs
>>> that support FP/SIMD and half-precision floating-point features, the
>>> ID_AA64PFR0_EL1.FP/SIMD are 1. For these CPUs, xen will treat them as
>>> no FP/SIMD support. In this case, the vfp_save/restore_state will not
>>> take effect.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, Cortex-N1/A76/A75 are the CPUs support FP/SIMD and
>>> half-precision floatiing-point. Their ID_AA64PFR0_EL1.FP/SMID are 1
>>> (see Arm ARM DDI0487F.b, D13.2.64). In this case, on N1/A76/A75
>>> platforms, Xen will always miss the float pointer registers save/restore.
>>> If different vCPUs are running on the same pCPU, the float pointer
>>> registers will be corrupted randomly.
>>
>> That's a good catch, thanks for working this out!
>>
>> One thing below...
>>
>>> This patch fixes Xen on these new cores.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Chen <wei.c...@arm.com>
>>> ---
>>> xen/include/asm-arm/cpufeature.h | 4 ++--
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/cpufeature.h
>>> b/xen/include/asm-arm/cpufeature.h
>>> index 674beb0353..588089e5ae 100644
>>> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/cpufeature.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/cpufeature.h
>>> @@ -13,8 +13,8 @@
>>> #define cpu_has_el2_64 (boot_cpu_feature64(el2) >= 1)
>>> #define cpu_has_el3_32 (boot_cpu_feature64(el3) == 2)
>>> #define cpu_has_el3_64 (boot_cpu_feature64(el3) >= 1)
>>> -#define cpu_has_fp (boot_cpu_feature64(fp) == 0)
>>> -#define cpu_has_simd (boot_cpu_feature64(simd) == 0)
>>> +#define cpu_has_fp (boot_cpu_feature64(fp) <= 1)
>>> +#define cpu_has_simd (boot_cpu_feature64(simd) <= 1)
>>
>> But this is only good until the next feature bump. I think we should be
>> more future-proof here. The architecture describes those two fields as
>> "signed"[1], and guarantees that "if value >= 0" is a valid test for the
>> feature. Which means we are good as long as the sign bit (bit 3) is
>> clear, which translates into:
>> #define cpu_has_fp (boot_cpu_feature64(fp) < 8)
>> Same for simd.
>>
>
> We cannot really be sure that a new version introduced will require the
> same context save/restore so it might dangerous to claim we support
> something we have no idea about.
I am pretty sure we can, because this is what the FP feature describes.
If a feature bump would introduce a larger state to be saved and
restored, that would be covered by a new field, look at AdvSIMD and SVE
for examples.
The feature number would only be bumped if it's compatible:
====================
· The field holds a signed value.
· The field value 0xF indicates that the feature is not implemented.
· The field value 0x0 indicates that the feature is implemented.
· Software that depends on the feature can use the test:
if value >= 0 { // Software features that depend on the presence
of the hardware feature }
====================
(ARMv8 ARM D13.1.3)
And this is how Linux handles this.
Cheers,
Andre
> I agree though about the analysis on the fact that values under 8 should
> be valid but only 0 and 1 currently exist [1], other values are reserved.
>
> So I would vote to keep the 1 for now there.
>
> Cheers
> Bertrand
>
> [1]
> https://developer.arm.com/docs/ddi0595/h/aarch64-system-registers/id_aa64pfr0_el1
>
