On 23/05/2025 20:30, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 12:19:26PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
>> Split the code that check for the uniformity of misaligned accesses
>> performance on all cpus from check_unaligned_access_emulated_all_cpus()
>> to its own function which will be used for delegation check. No
>> functional changes intended.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Clément Léger <cleger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c
>> index f1b2af515592..7ecaa8103fe7 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/traps_misaligned.c
>> @@ -645,6 +645,18 @@ bool __init check_vector_unaligned_access_emulated_all_cpus(void)
>> }
>> #endif
>>
>> +static bool all_cpus_unaligned_scalar_access_emulated(void)
>> +{
>> + int cpu;
>> +
>> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>> + if (per_cpu(misaligned_access_speed, cpu) !=
>> + RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_EMULATED)
>> + return false;
>> +
>> + return true;
>> +}
>
> This ends up wasting time when !CONFIG_RISCV_SCALAR_MISALIGNED since it
> will always return false in that case. Maybe there is a way to simplify
> the ifdefs and still have performant code, but I don't think this is a
> big enough problem to prevent this patch from merging.
Yeah I though of that as well but the amount of call to this function is
probably well below 10 times so I guess it does not really matters in
that case to justify yet another ifdef ?
>
> Reviewed-by: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Clément
>
>> +
>> #ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_SCALAR_MISALIGNED
>>
>> static bool unaligned_ctl __read_mostly;
>> @@ -683,8 +695,6 @@ static int cpu_online_check_unaligned_access_emulated(unsigned int cpu)
>>
>> bool __init check_unaligned_access_emulated_all_cpus(void)
>> {
>> - int cpu;
>> -
>> /*
>> * We can only support PR_UNALIGN controls if all CPUs have misaligned
>> * accesses emulated since tasks requesting such control can run on any
>> @@ -692,10 +702,8 @@ bool __init check_unaligned_access_emulated_all_cpus(void)
>> */
>> on_each_cpu(check_unaligned_access_emulated, NULL, 1);
>>
>> - for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>> - if (per_cpu(misaligned_access_speed, cpu)
>> - != RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_SCALAR_EMULATED)
>> - return false;
>> + if (!all_cpus_unaligned_scalar_access_emulated())
>> + return false;
>>
>> unaligned_ctl = true;
>> return true;
>> --
>> 2.49.0
>>
