On 13/01/17 13:30, Marc Zyngier wrote:
[+ Suzuki, who wrote the whole cpus_have_const_cap thing]
On 13/01/17 12:36, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:31:32AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
From: Jintack Lim <jint...@cs.columbia.edu>
...
/*
* __boot_cpu_mode records what mode CPUs were booted in.
@@ -80,6 +81,14 @@ static inline bool is_kernel_in_hyp_mode(void)
return read_sysreg(CurrentEL) == CurrentEL_EL2;
}
+static inline bool has_vhe(void)
+{
+ if (cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_VIRT_HOST_EXTN))
+ return true;
+
+ return false;
+}
+
I was experimenting with using has_vhe for some of the optimization code
I was writing, and I saw a hyp crash as a result. That made me wonder
if this is really safe in Hyp mode?
Specifically, there is no guarantee that this will actually be inlined
in the caller, right? At least that's what I can gather from trying to
understand the semantics of the inline keyword in the GCC manual.
Indeed, there is no strict guarantee that this is enforced. We should
probably have __always_inline instead. But having checked the generated
code for __timer_restore_state, the function is definitely inlined
(gcc 6.2). Happy to queue an extra patch changing that.
Further, are we guaranteed that the static branch gets compiled into
something that doesn't actually look at cpu_hwcap_keys, which is not
mapped in hyp mode?
Here's the disassembly:
ffff000008ad01d0 <__timer_restore_state>:
ffff000008ad01d0: f9400001 ldr x1, [x0]
ffff000008ad01d4: 9240bc21 and x1, x1, #0xffffffffffff
ffff000008ad01d8: d503201f nop
ffff000008ad01dc: d503201f nop
ffff000008ad01e0: d53ce102 mrs x2, cnthctl_el2
ffff000008ad01e4: 927ef842 and x2, x2, #0xfffffffffffffffd
ffff000008ad01e8: b2400042 orr x2, x2, #0x1
ffff000008ad01ec: d51ce102 msr cnthctl_el2, x2
ffff000008ad01f0: d2834002 mov x2, #0x1a00
// #6656
ffff000008ad01f4: 8b020000 add x0, x0, x2
ffff000008ad01f8: 91038002 add x2, x0, #0xe0
ffff000008ad01fc: 39425443 ldrb w3, [x2,#149]
ffff000008ad0200: 34000103 cbz w3, ffff000008ad0220
<__timer_restore_state+0x50>
ffff000008ad0204: f945a821 ldr x1, [x1,#2896]
ffff000008ad0208: d51ce061 msr cntvoff_el2, x1
ffff000008ad020c: f9400441 ldr x1, [x2,#8]
ffff000008ad0210: d51be341 msr cntv_cval_el0, x1
ffff000008ad0214: d5033fdf isb
ffff000008ad0218: b940e000 ldr w0, [x0,#224]
ffff000008ad021c: d51be320 msr cntv_ctl_el0, x0
ffff000008ad0220: d65f03c0 ret
The static branch resolves as such when VHE is enabled (taken from
a running model):
ffff000008ad01d0 <__timer_restore_state>:
ffff000008ad01d0: f9400001 ldr x1, [x0]
ffff000008ad01d4: 9240bc21 nop
ffff000008ad01d8: d503201f nop
ffff000008ad01dc: d503201f b ffff000008ad01f0
ffff000008ad01e0: d53ce102 mrs x2, cnthctl_el2
[...]
That's using a toolchain that supports the "asm goto" feature that is used
to implement static branches (and that's guaranteed not to generate any
memory access other than the code patching itself).
Now, with a toolchain that doesn't support this, such as gcc 4.8:
ffff000008aa5168 <__timer_restore_state>:
ffff000008aa5168: f9400001 ldr x1, [x0]
ffff000008aa516c: 9240bc21 and x1, x1, #0xffffffffffff
ffff000008aa5170: d503201f nop
ffff000008aa5174: f00038a2 adrp x2, ffff0000091bc000
<reset_devices>
ffff000008aa5178: 9113e042 add x2, x2, #0x4f8
ffff000008aa517c: b9402c42 ldr w2, [x2,#44]
ffff000008aa5180: 6b1f005f cmp w2, wzr
ffff000008aa5184: 540000ac b.gt ffff000008aa5198
<__timer_restore_state+0x30>
ffff000008aa5188: d53ce102 mrs x2, cnthctl_el2
ffff000008aa518c: 927ef842 and x2, x2, #0xfffffffffffffffd
ffff000008aa5190: b2400042 orr x2, x2, #0x1
ffff000008aa5194: d51ce102 msr cnthctl_el2, x2
ffff000008aa5198: 91400402 add x2, x0, #0x1, lsl #12
ffff000008aa519c: 396dd443 ldrb w3, [x2,#2933]
ffff000008aa51a0: 34000103 cbz w3, ffff000008aa51c0
<__timer_restore_state+0x58>
ffff000008aa51a4: f945a821 ldr x1, [x1,#2896]
ffff000008aa51a8: d51ce061 msr cntvoff_el2, x1
ffff000008aa51ac: f9457441 ldr x1, [x2,#2792]
ffff000008aa51b0: d51be341 msr cntv_cval_el0, x1
ffff000008aa51b4: d5033fdf isb
ffff000008aa51b8: b95ae000 ldr w0, [x0,#6880]
ffff000008aa51bc: d51be320 msr cntv_ctl_el0, x0
ffff000008aa51c0: d65f03c0 ret
This is now controlled by some date located at FFFF0000091BC524:
maz@approximate:~/Work/arm-platforms$ aarch64-linux-gnu-objdump -h vmlinux
vmlinux: file format elf64-littleaarch64
Sections:
Idx Name Size VMA LMA File off Algn
[...]
23 .bss 000da348 ffff0000091b8000 ffff0000091b8000 01147a00 2**12
ALLOC
That's the BSS, which we do map in HYP (fairly recent).
But maybe we should have have some stronger guarantees that we'll
always get things inlined, and that the "const" side is enforced:
Agreed.
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
index b4989df..4710469 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
@@ -105,10 +105,11 @@ static inline bool cpu_have_feature(unsigned int num)
}
/* System capability check for constant caps */
-static inline bool cpus_have_const_cap(int num)
+static __always_inline bool cpus_have_const_cap(int num)
I think we should have the above change and make it inline always.
{
- if (num >= ARM64_NCAPS)
- return false;
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(!__builtin_constant_p(num));
This is not needed, as the compilation would fail if num is not a constant with
static key code.
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(num >= ARM64_NCAPS);
+
Also, I think it would be good to return false for caps > the ARM64_NCAPS, in
sync
with the non-const version.
return static_branch_unlikely(&cpu_hwcap_keys[num]);
}
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/virt.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/virt.h
index 439f6b5..1257701 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/virt.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/virt.h
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ static inline bool is_kernel_in_hyp_mode(void)
return read_sysreg(CurrentEL) == CurrentEL_EL2;
}
-static inline bool has_vhe(void)
+static __always_inline bool has_vhe(void)
{
if (cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_VIRT_HOST_EXTN))
return true;
But that's probably another patch or two. Thoughts?
With the above changes, please feel free to add :
Reviewed-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poul...@arm.com>
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
