From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63453C55178 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 17:57:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E203720709 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 17:57:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="lPSurUjb" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E203720709 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=LzSM+NjswtFtIKiKe2zjMFoYUrBSfFQSYTFDI3r3/pM=; b=lPSurUjbhPjUs9MqkQfiDSC6Z 3SA8E0ST/lXA2Kp5sdtWrdcCZ+rUsSM0VrCD6RgytFEhrtVKw9u5wdBfRxHiufPezqxWbWsx8Cp5S 9iMdK/cl1YR5jiE8B+DIHRK4qALI9Ykq8joi5lQdqKs7jIQxUujfHX4hAOYV7gAcYRsMM4aZWy9vo jYhdS+TOtuBn95yqKHDzPn1Gjafi0OjRDkVTAoR5BJzpgLMwK7+bsyUczcoiFUgfodf+nUdvD+xYo ekiVdD+QJmjgb2SeHGkAvWNkavm0TZ78P3nhchoPtJZZF/iqiCsf3lQnbxZXdJCZ3AT5FDV2Pyw3N fa1qbWmVA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kajVK-0003f0-7x; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 17:56:58 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kajVH-0003eO-5Z for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 17:56:56 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F7DC14BF; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 09:56:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from arm.com (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B88293F719; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 09:56:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 17:56:48 +0000 From: Dave Martin To: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] arm64: Accelerate Adler32 using arm64 SVE instructions. Message-ID: <20201105175647.GI6882@arm.com> References: <20201103121506.1533-1-liqiang64@huawei.com> <20201103121506.1533-2-liqiang64@huawei.com> <20201103180031.GO6882@arm.com> <20201104175032.GA15020@sirena.org.uk> <20201104181256.GG6882@arm.com> <20201104184905.GB4812@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201104184905.GB4812@sirena.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20201105_125655_280240_31024166 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 30.33 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Alexandre Torgue , Catalin Marinas , "David S. Miller" , l00374334 , Linux Crypto Mailing List , Maxime Coquelin , Will Deacon , Ard Biesheuvel , Linux ARM , Herbert Xu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 06:49:05PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 06:13:06PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 05:50:33PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > I think at a minimum we'd want to handle the vector length explicitly > > > for kernel mode SVE, vector length independent code will work most of > > > the time but at the very least it feels like a landmine waiting to cause > > > trouble. If nothing else there's probably going to be cases where it > > > makes a difference for performance. Other than that I'm not currently > > ... > > > The main reasons for constraining the vector length are a) to hide > > mismatches between CPUs in heterogeneous systems, b) to ensure that > > validated software doesn't run with a vector length it wasn't validated > > for, and c) testing. > > > For kernel code, it's reasonable to say that all code should be vector- > > length agnostic unless there's a really good reason not to be. So we > > may not care too much about (b). > > > In that case, just setting ZCR_EL1.LEN to max in kernel_sve_begin() (or > > whatever) probably makes sense. > > I agree, that's most likely a good default. > > > For (c), it might be useful to have a command-line parameter or debugfs > > widget to constrain the vector length for kernel code; perhaps globally > > or perhaps per driver or algo. > > I think a global control would be good for testing, it seems simpler and > easier all round. The per thing tuning seems more useful for cases > where we run into something like a performance reason to use a limited > set of vector lengths but I think we should only add that when we have > at least one user for it, some examples of actual restrictions we want > would probably be helpful for designing the interface. Ack; note that an algo that wants to use a particular vector length can do so by means of the special predicate patterns VLnnn, POW2, MUL3 etc. So setting an explicit limit in ZCR_EL1.LEN should hopefully be an uncommon requirement. > > > Nonetheless, working up a candidate algorithm to help us see whether > > there is a good use case seems like a worthwhile project, so I don't > > want to discourage that too much. > > Definitely worth exploring. Cheers ---Dave _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel