#
e178bf14 |
|
22-Nov-2023 |
Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> |
RISC-V: hwprobe: Introduce which-cpus flag Introduce the first flag for the hwprobe syscall. The flag basically reverses its behavior, i.e. instead of populating the values of keys for a given set of cpus, the set of cpus after the call is the result of finding a set which supports the values of the keys. In order to do this, we implement a pair compare function which takes the type of value (a single value vs. a bitmask of booleans) into consideration. We also implement vdso support for the new flag. Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> Reviewed-by: Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231122164700.127954-9-ajones@ventanamicro.com Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
|
#
36d842d6 |
|
22-Nov-2023 |
Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> |
RISC-V: hwprobe: Clarify cpus size parameter The "count" parameter associated with the 'cpus' parameter of the hwprobe syscall is the size in bytes of 'cpus'. Naming it 'cpu_count' may mislead users (it did me) to think it's the number of CPUs that are or can be represented by 'cpus' instead. This is particularly easy (IMO) to get wrong since 'cpus' is documented to be defined by CPU_SET(3) and CPU_SET(3) also documents a CPU_COUNT() (the number of CPUs in set) macro. CPU_SET(3) refers to the size of cpu sets with 'setsize'. Adopt 'cpusetsize' for the hwprobe parameter and specifically state it is in bytes in Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst to clarify. Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231122164700.127954-7-ajones@ventanamicro.com Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
|
#
e1c05b3b |
|
10-Oct-2023 |
Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> |
RISC-V: hwprobe: Fix vDSO SIGSEGV A hwprobe pair key is signed, but the hwprobe vDSO function was only checking that the upper bound was valid. In order to help avoid this type of problem in the future, and in anticipation of this check becoming more complicated with sparse keys, introduce and use a "key is valid" predicate function for the check. Fixes: aa5af0aa90ba ("RISC-V: Add hwprobe vDSO function and data") Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> Reviewed-by: Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231010165101.14942-2-ajones@ventanamicro.com Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
|
#
aa5af0aa |
|
07-Apr-2023 |
Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com> |
RISC-V: Add hwprobe vDSO function and data Add a vDSO function __vdso_riscv_hwprobe, which can sit in front of the riscv_hwprobe syscall and answer common queries. We stash a copy of static answers for the "all CPUs" case in the vDSO data page. This data is private to the vDSO, so we can decide later to change what's stored there or under what conditions we defer to the syscall. Currently all data can be discovered at boot, so the vDSO function answers all queries when the cpumask is set to the "all CPUs" hint. There's also a boolean in the data that lets the vDSO function know that all CPUs are the same. In that case, the vDSO will also answer queries for arbitrary CPU masks in addition to the "all CPUs" hint. Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230407231103.2622178-7-evan@rivosinc.com Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
|