Re: [PATCH] riscv: uaccess: Allow the last potential unrolled copy

From: Alexandre Ghiti <alex@ghiti.fr>
To: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk>,
	Xiao Wang <xiao.w.wang@intel.com>,
	paul.walmsley@sifive.com, palmer@dabbelt.com,
	aou@eecs.berkeley.edu
Cc: jerry.shih@sifive.com, nick.knight@sifive.com,
	ajones@ventanamicro.com, bjorn@rivosinc.com,
	andy.chiu@sifive.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	cleger@rivosinc.com, alexghiti@rivosinc.com,
	haicheng.li@intel.com, akira.tsukamoto@gmail.com,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: uaccess: Allow the last potential unrolled copy
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 15:02:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <daa955d9-b554-4e0e-a08e-835c4cd5a366@ghiti.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4bc238eb-410b-46b1-98e1-4aaa35e34404@codethink.co.uk>

Hi Ben,

On 03/05/2024 14:19, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On 03/05/2024 13:16, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
>> Hi Xiao,
>>
>> On 13/03/2024 11:33, Xiao Wang wrote:
>>> When the dst buffer pointer points to the last accessible aligned 
>>> addr, we
>>> could still run another iteration of unrolled copy.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Wang <xiao.w.wang@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/riscv/lib/uaccess.S | 2 +-
>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/lib/uaccess.S b/arch/riscv/lib/uaccess.S
>>> index 2e665f8f8fcc..1399d797d81b 100644
>>> --- a/arch/riscv/lib/uaccess.S
>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/lib/uaccess.S
>>> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(fallback_scalar_usercopy)
>>>       fixup REG_S   t4,  7*SZREG(a0), 10f
>>>       addi    a0, a0, 8*SZREG
>>>       addi    a1, a1, 8*SZREG
>>> -    bltu    a0, t0, 2b
>>> +    bleu    a0, t0, 2b
>>>       addi    t0, t0, 8*SZREG /* revert to original value */
>>>       j    .Lbyte_copy_tail
>>
>>
>> I agree it is still safe to continue for another word_copy here.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>
>
> Out of interest, has anyone checked if causing a schedule event during
> this code breaks like the last time we had issues with the upstream
> testing?

I vaguely remember something, do you have a link to that discussion by 
chance?

>
> I did propose saving the state of the user-access flag in the task
> struct

Makes sense, I just took a quick look and SR_SUM is cleared as soon as 
we enter handle_exception() and it does not seem to be restored. Weird 
it works, unless I missed something!

> but we mostly solved it by making sleeping functions stay
> away from the address calculation. This of course may have been done
> already or need to be done if three's long areas where the user-access
> flags can be disabled (generally only a few drivers did this, so we
> may not have come across the problem)
>
I don't understand what you mean here, would you mind expanding a bit?

Thanks,

Alex

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