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!
next prev parent 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