Re: [PATCH 7/9] riscv: Prepare for unaligned access type table lookups

[Charlie Jenkins <charlie@rivosinc.com>]

On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 10:43:18AM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 05:22:52PM -0800, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 05:19:47PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > Probing unaligned accesses on boot is time consuming. Provide a
> > > function which will be used to look up the access type in a table
> > > by id registers. Vendors which provide table entries can then skip
> > > the probing.
> > 
> > The access checker in my experience is only time consuming on slow
> > hardware. Hardware that supports fast unaligned accesses isn't really
> > impacted by this?
> 
> That's true, but...
> 
> > Avoiding a list of hardware that has slow/fast
> > unaligned accesses in the kernel was the main reason for dynamically
> > checking.
> 
> ...I'm not sure why we should try to avoid determining hardware support
> by its description when a description can be provided.

I worry about scalability of this. This to me seems like a slippery
slope of hardcoding performance tables into the kernel. There are a lot
of riscv vendors and allowing anybody to add a table to the kernel to
dynamically change behavior specifically for their hardware could become
a maintainability nightmare. Avoiding this maintainability issue was the
motivation for the runtime checker.

> 
> > We did introduce the config option to compile the kernel with
> > assumed slow/fast accesses, which of course has the downside of
> > recompiling the kernel and I assume that you already considered that.
> 
> yup
> 
> > 
> > Instead of having a table in the kernel, something that would be more
> > platform agnostic would be to have an extension that signals this
> > information. That seems like it would accomplish the same goal and
> > leverage the existing infrastructure in the kernel, albeit with the need
> > to make a new extension.
> 
> Yes, I agree that another profile "named feature" may be the best
> approach. I'll consider proposing one, but [1] implies there may be

Yeah that thread does highlight the unfortunate way that riscv has
evolved, but I hope that wouldn't be a prohibiting factor here.

- Charlie

> some resistance to creating something like that.
> 
> [1] https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/issues/1611
> 
> Thanks,
> drew

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv