All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@rivosinc.com>
To: Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com>
Cc: "Palmer Dabbelt" <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	"Yangyu Chen" <cyy@cyyself.name>,
	"Albert Ou" <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	"Alexandre Ghiti" <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>,
	"Andrew Jones" <ajones@ventanamicro.com>,
	"Andy Chiu" <andy.chiu@sifive.com>,
	"Ben Dooks" <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk>,
	"Björn Töpel" <bjorn@rivosinc.com>,
	"Clément Léger" <cleger@rivosinc.com>,
	"Conor Dooley" <conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
	"Costa Shulyupin" <costa.shul@redhat.com>,
	"Erick Archer" <erick.archer@gmx.com>,
	"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
	"Paul Walmsley" <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] RISC-V: hwprobe: Add SCALAR to misaligned perf defines
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 10:56:03 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZrO1MxZH+GwC5FQS@ghost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240627172238.2460840-3-evan@rivosinc.com>

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 10:22:38AM -0700, Evan Green wrote:
> In preparation for misaligned vector performance hwprobe keys, rename
> the hwprobe key values associated with misaligned scalar accesses to
> include the term SCALAR. Leave the old defines in place to maintain
> source compatibility.
> 
> This change is intended to be a functional no-op.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com>
> Reviewed-by: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@rivosinc.com>
> 
> ---
> 
> Changes in v3:
>  - Leave the old defines in place (Conor, Palmer)
> 
> Changes in v2:
>  - Added patch to rename misaligned perf key values (Palmer)
> 
>  Documentation/arch/riscv/hwprobe.rst       | 14 +++++++-------
>  arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h      |  5 +++++
>  arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c            | 10 +++++-----
>  arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c       |  6 +++---
>  arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c | 12 ++++++------
>  5 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/arch/riscv/hwprobe.rst b/Documentation/arch/riscv/hwprobe.rst
> index 7121a00a8464..0d14e9d83a78 100644
> --- a/Documentation/arch/riscv/hwprobe.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/arch/riscv/hwprobe.rst
> @@ -243,23 +243,23 @@ The following keys are defined:
>    the performance of misaligned scalar native word accesses on the selected set
>    of processors.
>  
> -  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN`: The performance of misaligned
> -    accesses is unknown.
> +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNKNOWN`: The performance of
> +    misaligned accesses is unknown.

Hey Evan,

This series hasn't landed yet, can you rebase and resend? There is a
patch [1] that changes the wording of this description to "misaligned
scalar" instead of "misaligned". Can you apply that wording change to
these new keys?

- Charlie

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/CAJgzZorn5anPH8dVPqvjVWmLKqTi5bkLDR=FH-ZAcdXFnNe8Eg@mail.gmail.com/

>  
> -  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_EMULATED`: Misaligned accesses are
> +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_EMULATED`: Misaligned accesses are
>      emulated via software, either in or below the kernel.  These accesses are
>      always extremely slow.
>  
> -  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SLOW`: Misaligned native word
> +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_SLOW`: Misaligned native word
>      sized accesses are slower than the equivalent quantity of byte accesses.
>      Misaligned accesses may be supported directly in hardware, or trapped and
>      emulated by software.
>  
> -  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_FAST`: Misaligned native word
> +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_FAST`: Misaligned native word
>      sized accesses are faster than the equivalent quantity of byte accesses.
>  
> -  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNSUPPORTED`: Misaligned accesses are
> -    not supported at all and will generate a misaligned address fault.
> +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNSUPPORTED`: Misaligned accesses
> +    are not supported at all and will generate a misaligned address fault.
>  
>  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_ZICBOZ_BLOCK_SIZE`: An unsigned int which
>    represents the size of the Zicboz block in bytes.
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h b/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h
> index 7ebb2f2cc4cf..bcb2d91241d5 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h
> @@ -80,6 +80,11 @@ struct riscv_hwprobe {
>  #define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_MASK		(7 << 0)
>  #define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_ZICBOZ_BLOCK_SIZE	6
>  #define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_PERF	7
> +#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNKNOWN		0
> +#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_EMULATED	1
> +#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_SLOW		2
> +#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_FAST		3
> +#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNSUPPORTED	4
>  /* Increase RISCV_HWPROBE_MAX_KEY when adding items. */
>  
>  /* Flags */
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c
> index b18639020c61..d5541f6c843e 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c
> @@ -176,13 +176,13 @@ static u64 hwprobe_misaligned(const struct cpumask *cpus)
>  			perf = this_perf;
>  
>  		if (perf != this_perf) {
> -			perf = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN;
> +			perf = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNKNOWN;
>  			break;
>  		}
>  	}
>  
>  	if (perf == -1ULL)
> -		return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN;
> +		return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNKNOWN;
>  
>  	return perf;
>  }
> @@ -190,12 +190,12 @@ static u64 hwprobe_misaligned(const struct cpumask *cpus)
>  static u64 hwprobe_misaligned(const struct cpumask *cpus)
>  {
>  	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS))
> -		return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_FAST;
> +		return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_FAST;
>  
>  	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_EMULATED_UNALIGNED_ACCESS) && unaligned_ctl_available())
> -		return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_EMULATED;
> +		return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_EMULATED;
>  
> -	return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SLOW;
> +	return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_SLOW;
>  }
>  #endif
>  
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c
> index b62d5a2f4541..192cd5603e95 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c
> @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ int handle_misaligned_load(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  	perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_ALIGNMENT_FAULTS, 1, regs, addr);
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_PROBE_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
> -	*this_cpu_ptr(&misaligned_access_speed) = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_EMULATED;
> +	*this_cpu_ptr(&misaligned_access_speed) = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_EMULATED;
>  #endif
>  
>  	if (!unaligned_enabled)
> @@ -532,13 +532,13 @@ static bool check_unaligned_access_emulated(int cpu)
>  	unsigned long tmp_var, tmp_val;
>  	bool misaligned_emu_detected;
>  
> -	*mas_ptr = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN;
> +	*mas_ptr = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNKNOWN;
>  
>  	__asm__ __volatile__ (
>  		"       "REG_L" %[tmp], 1(%[ptr])\n"
>  		: [tmp] "=r" (tmp_val) : [ptr] "r" (&tmp_var) : "memory");
>  
> -	misaligned_emu_detected = (*mas_ptr == RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_EMULATED);
> +	misaligned_emu_detected = (*mas_ptr == RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_EMULATED);
>  	/*
>  	 * If unaligned_ctl is already set, this means that we detected that all
>  	 * CPUS uses emulated misaligned access at boot time. If that changed
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c
> index a9a6bcb02acf..160628a2116d 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c
> @@ -34,9 +34,9 @@ static int check_unaligned_access(void *param)
>  	struct page *page = param;
>  	void *dst;
>  	void *src;
> -	long speed = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SLOW;
> +	long speed = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_SLOW;
>  
> -	if (per_cpu(misaligned_access_speed, cpu) != RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN)
> +	if (per_cpu(misaligned_access_speed, cpu) != RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNKNOWN)
>  		return 0;
>  
>  	/* Make an unaligned destination buffer. */
> @@ -95,14 +95,14 @@ static int check_unaligned_access(void *param)
>  	}
>  
>  	if (word_cycles < byte_cycles)
> -		speed = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_FAST;
> +		speed = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_FAST;
>  
>  	ratio = div_u64((byte_cycles * 100), word_cycles);
>  	pr_info("cpu%d: Ratio of byte access time to unaligned word access is %d.%02d, unaligned accesses are %s\n",
>  		cpu,
>  		ratio / 100,
>  		ratio % 100,
> -		(speed == RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_FAST) ? "fast" : "slow");
> +		(speed == RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_FAST) ? "fast" : "slow");
>  
>  	per_cpu(misaligned_access_speed, cpu) = speed;
>  
> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static int check_unaligned_access(void *param)
>  	 * Set the value of fast_misaligned_access of a CPU. These operations
>  	 * are atomic to avoid race conditions.
>  	 */
> -	if (speed == RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_FAST)
> +	if (speed == RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_FAST)
>  		cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &fast_misaligned_access);
>  	else
>  		cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &fast_misaligned_access);
> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ static int riscv_online_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
>  	static struct page *buf;
>  
>  	/* We are already set since the last check */
> -	if (per_cpu(misaligned_access_speed, cpu) != RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN)
> +	if (per_cpu(misaligned_access_speed, cpu) != RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNKNOWN)
>  		goto exit;
>  
>  	buf = alloc_pages(GFP_KERNEL, MISALIGNED_BUFFER_ORDER);
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@rivosinc.com>
To: Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com>
Cc: "Palmer Dabbelt" <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	"Yangyu Chen" <cyy@cyyself.name>,
	"Albert Ou" <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	"Alexandre Ghiti" <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>,
	"Andrew Jones" <ajones@ventanamicro.com>,
	"Andy Chiu" <andy.chiu@sifive.com>,
	"Ben Dooks" <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk>,
	"Björn Töpel" <bjorn@rivosinc.com>,
	"Clément Léger" <cleger@rivosinc.com>,
	"Conor Dooley" <conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
	"Costa Shulyupin" <costa.shul@redhat.com>,
	"Erick Archer" <erick.archer@gmx.com>,
	"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
	"Paul Walmsley" <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] RISC-V: hwprobe: Add SCALAR to misaligned perf defines
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 10:56:03 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZrO1MxZH+GwC5FQS@ghost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240627172238.2460840-3-evan@rivosinc.com>

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 10:22:38AM -0700, Evan Green wrote:
> In preparation for misaligned vector performance hwprobe keys, rename
> the hwprobe key values associated with misaligned scalar accesses to
> include the term SCALAR. Leave the old defines in place to maintain
> source compatibility.
> 
> This change is intended to be a functional no-op.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com>
> Reviewed-by: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@rivosinc.com>
> 
> ---
> 
> Changes in v3:
>  - Leave the old defines in place (Conor, Palmer)
> 
> Changes in v2:
>  - Added patch to rename misaligned perf key values (Palmer)
> 
>  Documentation/arch/riscv/hwprobe.rst       | 14 +++++++-------
>  arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h      |  5 +++++
>  arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c            | 10 +++++-----
>  arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c       |  6 +++---
>  arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c | 12 ++++++------
>  5 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/arch/riscv/hwprobe.rst b/Documentation/arch/riscv/hwprobe.rst
> index 7121a00a8464..0d14e9d83a78 100644
> --- a/Documentation/arch/riscv/hwprobe.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/arch/riscv/hwprobe.rst
> @@ -243,23 +243,23 @@ The following keys are defined:
>    the performance of misaligned scalar native word accesses on the selected set
>    of processors.
>  
> -  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN`: The performance of misaligned
> -    accesses is unknown.
> +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNKNOWN`: The performance of
> +    misaligned accesses is unknown.

Hey Evan,

This series hasn't landed yet, can you rebase and resend? There is a
patch [1] that changes the wording of this description to "misaligned
scalar" instead of "misaligned". Can you apply that wording change to
these new keys?

- Charlie

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/CAJgzZorn5anPH8dVPqvjVWmLKqTi5bkLDR=FH-ZAcdXFnNe8Eg@mail.gmail.com/

>  
> -  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_EMULATED`: Misaligned accesses are
> +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_EMULATED`: Misaligned accesses are
>      emulated via software, either in or below the kernel.  These accesses are
>      always extremely slow.
>  
> -  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SLOW`: Misaligned native word
> +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_SLOW`: Misaligned native word
>      sized accesses are slower than the equivalent quantity of byte accesses.
>      Misaligned accesses may be supported directly in hardware, or trapped and
>      emulated by software.
>  
> -  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_FAST`: Misaligned native word
> +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_FAST`: Misaligned native word
>      sized accesses are faster than the equivalent quantity of byte accesses.
>  
> -  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNSUPPORTED`: Misaligned accesses are
> -    not supported at all and will generate a misaligned address fault.
> +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNSUPPORTED`: Misaligned accesses
> +    are not supported at all and will generate a misaligned address fault.
>  
>  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_ZICBOZ_BLOCK_SIZE`: An unsigned int which
>    represents the size of the Zicboz block in bytes.
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h b/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h
> index 7ebb2f2cc4cf..bcb2d91241d5 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h
> @@ -80,6 +80,11 @@ struct riscv_hwprobe {
>  #define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_MASK		(7 << 0)
>  #define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_ZICBOZ_BLOCK_SIZE	6
>  #define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_PERF	7
> +#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNKNOWN		0
> +#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_EMULATED	1
> +#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_SLOW		2
> +#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_FAST		3
> +#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNSUPPORTED	4
>  /* Increase RISCV_HWPROBE_MAX_KEY when adding items. */
>  
>  /* Flags */
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c
> index b18639020c61..d5541f6c843e 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c
> @@ -176,13 +176,13 @@ static u64 hwprobe_misaligned(const struct cpumask *cpus)
>  			perf = this_perf;
>  
>  		if (perf != this_perf) {
> -			perf = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN;
> +			perf = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNKNOWN;
>  			break;
>  		}
>  	}
>  
>  	if (perf == -1ULL)
> -		return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN;
> +		return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNKNOWN;
>  
>  	return perf;
>  }
> @@ -190,12 +190,12 @@ static u64 hwprobe_misaligned(const struct cpumask *cpus)
>  static u64 hwprobe_misaligned(const struct cpumask *cpus)
>  {
>  	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS))
> -		return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_FAST;
> +		return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_FAST;
>  
>  	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_EMULATED_UNALIGNED_ACCESS) && unaligned_ctl_available())
> -		return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_EMULATED;
> +		return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_EMULATED;
>  
> -	return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SLOW;
> +	return RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_SLOW;
>  }
>  #endif
>  
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c
> index b62d5a2f4541..192cd5603e95 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c
> @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ int handle_misaligned_load(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  	perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_ALIGNMENT_FAULTS, 1, regs, addr);
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_PROBE_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
> -	*this_cpu_ptr(&misaligned_access_speed) = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_EMULATED;
> +	*this_cpu_ptr(&misaligned_access_speed) = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_EMULATED;
>  #endif
>  
>  	if (!unaligned_enabled)
> @@ -532,13 +532,13 @@ static bool check_unaligned_access_emulated(int cpu)
>  	unsigned long tmp_var, tmp_val;
>  	bool misaligned_emu_detected;
>  
> -	*mas_ptr = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN;
> +	*mas_ptr = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNKNOWN;
>  
>  	__asm__ __volatile__ (
>  		"       "REG_L" %[tmp], 1(%[ptr])\n"
>  		: [tmp] "=r" (tmp_val) : [ptr] "r" (&tmp_var) : "memory");
>  
> -	misaligned_emu_detected = (*mas_ptr == RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_EMULATED);
> +	misaligned_emu_detected = (*mas_ptr == RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_EMULATED);
>  	/*
>  	 * If unaligned_ctl is already set, this means that we detected that all
>  	 * CPUS uses emulated misaligned access at boot time. If that changed
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c
> index a9a6bcb02acf..160628a2116d 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/unaligned_access_speed.c
> @@ -34,9 +34,9 @@ static int check_unaligned_access(void *param)
>  	struct page *page = param;
>  	void *dst;
>  	void *src;
> -	long speed = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SLOW;
> +	long speed = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_SLOW;
>  
> -	if (per_cpu(misaligned_access_speed, cpu) != RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN)
> +	if (per_cpu(misaligned_access_speed, cpu) != RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNKNOWN)
>  		return 0;
>  
>  	/* Make an unaligned destination buffer. */
> @@ -95,14 +95,14 @@ static int check_unaligned_access(void *param)
>  	}
>  
>  	if (word_cycles < byte_cycles)
> -		speed = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_FAST;
> +		speed = RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_FAST;
>  
>  	ratio = div_u64((byte_cycles * 100), word_cycles);
>  	pr_info("cpu%d: Ratio of byte access time to unaligned word access is %d.%02d, unaligned accesses are %s\n",
>  		cpu,
>  		ratio / 100,
>  		ratio % 100,
> -		(speed == RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_FAST) ? "fast" : "slow");
> +		(speed == RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_FAST) ? "fast" : "slow");
>  
>  	per_cpu(misaligned_access_speed, cpu) = speed;
>  
> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static int check_unaligned_access(void *param)
>  	 * Set the value of fast_misaligned_access of a CPU. These operations
>  	 * are atomic to avoid race conditions.
>  	 */
> -	if (speed == RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_FAST)
> +	if (speed == RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_FAST)
>  		cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &fast_misaligned_access);
>  	else
>  		cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &fast_misaligned_access);
> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ static int riscv_online_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
>  	static struct page *buf;
>  
>  	/* We are already set since the last check */
> -	if (per_cpu(misaligned_access_speed, cpu) != RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN)
> +	if (per_cpu(misaligned_access_speed, cpu) != RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_UNKNOWN)
>  		goto exit;
>  
>  	buf = alloc_pages(GFP_KERNEL, MISALIGNED_BUFFER_ORDER);
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

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

  reply	other threads:[~2024-08-07 17:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-06-27 17:22 [PATCH v3 0/2] RISC-V: hwprobe: Misaligned scalar perf fix and rename Evan Green
2024-06-27 17:22 ` Evan Green
2024-06-27 17:22 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] RISC-V: hwprobe: Add MISALIGNED_PERF key Evan Green
2024-06-27 17:22   ` Evan Green
2024-06-27 17:22 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] RISC-V: hwprobe: Add SCALAR to misaligned perf defines Evan Green
2024-06-27 17:22   ` Evan Green
2024-08-07 17:56   ` Charlie Jenkins [this message]
2024-08-07 17:56     ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-08-09 21:45     ` Evan Green
2024-08-09 21:45       ` Evan Green

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=ZrO1MxZH+GwC5FQS@ghost \
    --to=charlie@rivosinc.com \
    --cc=ajones@ventanamicro.com \
    --cc=alexghiti@rivosinc.com \
    --cc=andy.chiu@sifive.com \
    --cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
    --cc=ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk \
    --cc=bjorn@rivosinc.com \
    --cc=cleger@rivosinc.com \
    --cc=conor.dooley@microchip.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=costa.shul@redhat.com \
    --cc=cyy@cyyself.name \
    --cc=erick.archer@gmx.com \
    --cc=evan@rivosinc.com \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
    --cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.