[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v1 06/14] xen/riscv: riscv_of_processor_hartid() implementation


  • To: Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 15:45:24 +0200
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@xxxxxxx>, Bob Eshleman <bobbyeshleman@xxxxxxxxx>, Connor Davis <connojdavis@xxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>, Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 13:45:29 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 15.04.2025 15:39, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> On 4/10/25 5:53 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 08.04.2025 17:57, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>> +{
>>> +    const __be32 *cell;
>>> +    int ac;
>>> +    uint32_t len;
>>> +
>>> +    ac = dt_n_addr_cells(cpun);
>>> +    cell = dt_get_property(cpun, "reg", &len);
>>> +    if ( !cell || !ac || ((sizeof(*cell) * ac * (thread + 1)) > len) )
>>> +        return ~0ULL;
>> I'm sorry for my lack of DT knowledge, but what's "thread" representing here?
>> You only pass in 0 below, so it's unclear whether it's what one might expect
>> (the thread number on a multi-threaded core).
> 
> Based on the DT specification alone, the|`reg`| value could refer to either a 
> CPU or a thread ID:
> ```
> The value of reg is a <prop-encoded-array> that defines a unique CPU/thread 
> id for
> the CPU/threads represented by the CPU node. If a CPU supports more than one 
> thread
> (i.e. multiple streams of execution) the reg prop-erty is an array with 1 
> element
> per thread.
> ```
> 
> My understanding is that the term/thread/ was used in the Linux kernel to 
> cover both
> cases.
> When SMT isn't supported, the CPU can be considered to have a single thread.
> For example, RISC-V uses the term/hardware thread/ to describe a hart (i.e., 
> a CPU).
> 
> Interestingly, the Linux kernel always uses|thread = 0|.
> 
> We could potentially drop this ambiguity and introduce an|ASSERT()| to check 
> that
> the|`reg`| property contains only one entry, representing the HART (CPU) ID:
> ```
>    Software can determine the number of threads by dividing the size of reg 
> by the parent
>    node’s #address-cells. If `|reg`| has more than one entry, it would simply 
> SMT support
>    is required.
> ```
> 
> Does that approach make sense, or should we stick with the current 
> implementation?

If extra enabling is required to make multi-thread CPUs work, then panic()ing
(not so much ASSERT()ing) may make sense, for the time being. Better would be
if we could use all threads in a system right away.

Jan



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.