Re: [External] [PATCH] RISC-V: store percpu offset in CSR_SCRATCH

["Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@ventanamicro.com>]

2025-07-08T18:07:27+08:00, yunhui cui <cuiyunhui@bytedance.com>:
> This patch cleverly differentiates whether an exception originates
> from user mode or kernel mode. However, there's still an issue with
> using CSR_SCRATCH: each time handle_exception() is called, the
> following instructions must be executed:
>
> REG_L s0, TASK_TI_CPU(tp)
> slli s0, s0, 3
> la s1, __per_cpu_offset
> add s1, s1, s0
> REG_L s1, 0(s1)
> csrw CSR_SCRATCH, s1

We can minimize the cost at exception entry by storing the precomputed
offset in thread_info, which bloats the struct, and also incurs update
cost on cpu migration, but should still be a net performance gain.

The minimal code at exception entry would be:

  REG_L s0, TASK_TI_PERCPU_OFFSET(tp)
  csrw CSR_SCRATCH, s0

> Should we consider adding a dedicated CSR (e.g., CSR_SCRATCH2) to
> store the percpu offset instead?
> See: https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-privileged/topic/113437553#msg2506

It would be nice to gather more data on the CSR_SCRATCH approach.
Basically, the overhead of "REG_L s0, TASK_TI_PERCPU_OFFSET(tp)".
(Or the longer sequence if we think it is worth it.)

Can you benchmark the patch after reverting percpu.h, so we include the
overhead of switching CSR_SCRATCH, but without any benefits provided by
the per-cpu offset?
The baseline would be the patch with reverted percpu.h, and reverted the
sequence that sets the CSR_SCRATCH in handle_exception, so we roughly
estimate the benefit of adding CSR_SCRATCH2.

The CSR_SCRATCH2 does add overhead to hardware, and to domain context
switches, and we also have to do something else for a few years anyway,
because it's not even ratified...  It's possible we might not benefit
enough from CSR_SCRATCH2 to make a good case for it.

Thanks.