Re: [PATCH v2] riscv, bpf: Optimize zextw insn with Zba extension

From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
To: "Wang, Xiao W" <xiao.w.wang@intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>,
	"paul.walmsley@sifive.com" <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	"palmer@dabbelt.com" <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	"aou@eecs.berkeley.edu" <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	"luke.r.nels@gmail.com" <luke.r.nels@gmail.com>,
	"xi.wang@gmail.com" <xi.wang@gmail.com>,
	"bjorn@kernel.org" <bjorn@kernel.org>,
	"ast@kernel.org" <ast@kernel.org>,
	"daniel@iogearbox.net" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	"andrii@kernel.org" <andrii@kernel.org>,
	"martin.lau@linux.dev" <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
	"eddyz87@gmail.com" <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
	"song@kernel.org" <song@kernel.org>,
	"yonghong.song@linux.dev" <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
	"john.fastabend@gmail.com" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	"kpsingh@kernel.org" <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
	"sdf@google.com" <sdf@google.com>,
	"haoluo@google.com" <haoluo@google.com>,
	"jolsa@kernel.org" <jolsa@kernel.org>,
	"linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"bpf@vger.kernel.org" <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
	"pulehui@huawei.com" <pulehui@huawei.com>,
	"Li, Haicheng" <haicheng.li@intel.com>,
	"conor@kernel.org" <conor@kernel.org>,
	Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] riscv, bpf: Optimize zextw insn with Zba extension
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 12:51:04 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240515-wobble-stack-5b9264c12f37@wendy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DM8PR11MB5751A2BB91C431DAE14F48C1B8EC2@DM8PR11MB5751.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1778 bytes --]

On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 11:31:43AM +0000, Wang, Xiao W wrote:
> > From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> > > > My preferences is to remove as much of the TOOLCHAIN_HAS_ stuff as
> > > > possible. We should audit the extensions which have them to see if
> > > > they're really necessary.
> > >
> > > While I think it is reasonable to allow the "RISCV_ISA_ZBB" option to
> > > control whether or not bpf is allowed to use it for optimisations, only
> > > allowing bpf to do that if there's toolchain support feels odd to me..
> > > Maybe we need to sorta steal from Charlie's patchset and introduce
> > > some hidden options that have the toolchain dep that are used by the
> > > alternative macros etc?
> > >
> > > I'll have a poke at how bad that looks I think.
> > 
> > I don't love this, in particular my option naming, but it would allow
> > the Zbb optimisations in the kernel to not depend on toolchain support
> > while not muddying the Kconfig waters for users:
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/conor/linux.git/commit/?h=ri
> > scv-zbb_split
> 
> In that patch, I think the bpt jit part should check IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB)
> rather than IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB_ALT).

D'oh, you're right. The bpf code being different was meant to be the whole
point of the change...

> > A similar model could be followed if there were to be some
> > optimisations for Zba in the future that do require toolchain support:
> 
> Though this model introduces extra hidden Kconfig option, it does provide finer 
> config granularity. This should be a separate patch in the future, we can discuss about
> the option naming there.

Yeah, not expecting you to do this as part of this patch.

Thanks,
Conor.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 161 bytes --]

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