The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/mm: Re-organise setting up FEAT_S1PIE registers PIRE0_EL1 and PIR_EL1
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 13:31:53 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5d975762-7678-419f-8e2f-40547c079276@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXEnmpu3Dc5zZz1aQJGVwEFwx=JdYisSFkDNjUJ44FjX9Q@mail.gmail.com>

On 14/04/2025 13:28, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 at 14:04, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 14/04/2025 10:41, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 at 09:52, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/04/2025 08:40, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>>> mov_q cannot really move PIE_E[0|1] macros into a general purpose register
>>>>> as expected if those macro constants contain some 128 bit layout elements,
>>>>> required for D128 page tables. Fix this problem via first loading up these
>>>>> macro constants into a given memory location and then subsequently setting
>>>>> up registers PIRE0_EL1 and PIR_EL1 by retrieving the memory stored values.
>>>>
>>>> From memory, the primary issue is that for D128, PIE_E[0|1] are defined in terms
>>>> of 128-bit types with shifting and masking, which the assembler can't do? It
>>>> would be good to spell this out.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>>>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>>>>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
>>>>> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
>>>>> Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
>>>>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>>>>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> This patch applies on v6.15-rc1
>>>>>
>>>>>  arch/arm64/kernel/head.S         | 3 +++
>>>>>  arch/arm64/kernel/pi/map_range.c | 6 ++++++
>>>>>  arch/arm64/kernel/pi/pi.h        | 1 +
>>>>>  arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c              | 1 +
>>>>>  arch/arm64/mm/proc.S             | 5 +++--
>>>>>  5 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S
>>>>> index 2ce73525de2c..4950d9cc638a 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S
>>>>> @@ -126,6 +126,9 @@ SYM_CODE_START(primary_entry)
>>>>>        * On return, the CPU will be ready for the MMU to be turned on and
>>>>>        * the TCR will have been set.
>>>>>        */
>>>>> +     adr_l   x0, pir_data
>>>>> +     bl      __pi_load_pir_data
>>>>
>>>> Using C code to pre-calculate the values into global variables that the assembly
>>>> code then loads and stuffs into the PIR registers feels hacky. I wonder if we
>>>> can instead pre-calculate into asm-offsets.h? e.g. add the following to
>>>> asm-offsets.c:
>>>>
>>>> DEFINE(PIE_E0_ASM, PIE_E0);
>>>> DEFINE(PIE_E1_ASM, PIE_E1);
>>>>
>>>> Which will generate the asm-offsets.h header with PIE_E[0|1]_ASM with the
>>>> pre-calculated values that you can then use in proc.S?
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is another issue, which is that mov_q tries to be smart, and
>>> emit fewer than 4 MOVZ/MOVK instructions if possible. So the .if
>>> directive evaluates the argument, which does not work with symbolic
>>> constants.
>>
>> I'm not quite understanding the detail here; what do you mean by "symbolic
>> constants"? asm-offsets.h will provide something like:
>>
>> #define PIE_E0_ASM 1234567890
>>
>> The current code is using a hash-define and that's working fine:
>>
>> mov_q   x0, PIE_E0
>>
>>
>> Won't the C preprocessor just substitute and everything will work out?
>>
> 
> Yeah, you're right. I was experimenting with something like
> 
> .set .Lpie_e0, PIE_E0_ASM
> mov_q xN, .Lpie_e0
> 
> where this problem does exist, but we can just use PIE_E0_ASM directly
> and things should work as expected.

Ahh great, sounds like this should be pretty simple then!



  reply	other threads:[~2025-04-14 12:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-04-10  7:40 [PATCH] arm64/mm: Re-organise setting up FEAT_S1PIE registers PIRE0_EL1 and PIR_EL1 Anshuman Khandual
2025-04-10 12:28 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2025-04-14  5:43   ` Anshuman Khandual
2025-04-14  7:52 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-04-14  9:41   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2025-04-14 12:04     ` Ryan Roberts
2025-04-14 12:28       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2025-04-14 12:31         ` Ryan Roberts [this message]
2025-04-15  6:27           ` Anshuman Khandual
2025-04-15  7:53             ` Ryan Roberts
2025-04-15  9:46               ` Anshuman Khandual
2025-04-15 17:43                 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-04-16  2:26                   ` Anshuman Khandual

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=5d975762-7678-419f-8e2f-40547c079276@arm.com \
    --to=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
    --cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox