Hey Andy!

On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 08:13:27PM +0800, Andy Chiu wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 5:28 PM Andy Chiu <andy.chiu@sifive.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 2:20 PM Jeff Law <jlaw@ventanamicro.com> wrote:
> > > Fault on first use is well understood and has been implemented on many
> > > architectures through the decades, even with its warts.
> >
> > Unfortunately, we don't have a direct way of acknowledging if an
> > illegal instruction is caused by illegitimate use of V instructions.
> > Unlike ARM64, where reading ESR_EL1.EC is enough to distinguish the
> > fault, we may have to perform a sw decode on the faulting instruction.
> > Then see if it is the first-use fault, or a more general illegal
> > instruction fault.
> After taking more considerations, I think this could be minor. The
> first V-instruction of a valid program that uses Vector is limited to
> vset{i}vl{i}, vl<nf>r, or vs<nf>r. And perhaps some r/w of
> vector-specific CSRs. Decoding these instructions should be relatively
> constraint and easy. And we need this decoding only once for each
> process since we don't have to do lazy save/restore.
> >
> > Yes, we may just enable V for a process whenever we find an OP-V major
> > opcode, or a LOAD/STORE-FP with vector-encoded width on illegal
> > instruction. But it could be kind of messy, IF, later extensions would
> > also like to be enabled at first-use-fault. (e.g. ARM has SME followed
> > by SVE). And implementing this decoding logic in sw just seems
> > redundant to me because hw has already done that for us.
> Let's limit our discussion to the scope of VS enablement for now.
> >
> > Besides, ARM64 has individual mappings of traps for the use of
> > FP-related units in EL1 and EL0. So SIMD running in kernel mode would
> > not take additional instruction to enable the unit. I assume these
> > kinds of CSR-controlling instructions would have to flush hw internal
> > buffers to some extent. And doing these takes additional latencies.
> We already do some VS/FS settings on the entry of kernel code. So this
> should be minor as well.
> 
> Anyway, I agree that faulting on first-uses is a better way to make
> per-process control of VS feasible.

> Sorry for disturbing the list.

Meh, all of these discussions seem worthwhile to me!

Now that things have died down though, I'm curious - what are your
plans? Still going to submit another version of this series?

Thanks,
Conor.