lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/2] RISC-V: Define sys_riscv_flush_icache when SMP=n
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:27:37AM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 01:38:04 PDT (-0700), Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 03:19:51PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> >>This would be necessary to make non-SMP builds work, but there is
> >>another error in the implementation of our syscall linkage that actually
> >>just causes sys_riscv_flush_icache to never build. I've build tested
> >>this on allnoconfig and allnoconfig+SMP=y, as well as defconfig like
> >>normal.
> >
> >Would't it make sense to use COND_SYSCALL to stub out the syscall
> >for !SMP builds?
>
> I'm not sure. We can implement the syscall fine in !SMP, it's just that the
> vDSO is expected to always eat these calls because in non-SMP mode you can
> do a global fence.i by just doing a local fence.i (there's only one hart).
>
> The original rationale behind not having the syscall in non-SMP mode was to
> limit the user ABI, but on looking again that seems like it's just a bit of
> extra complexity that doesn't help anything. It's already been demonstrated

Doesn't this mean that some userspace code will only run if the kernel was
compiled for SMP ? I always thought that was unacceptable.

Guenter

> that nothing is checking the error because it's been silently slipping past
> userspace for six months, so the extra complexity seems like it'll just
> cause someone else to have to chase the bug in the future.
>
> But I'm really OK either way. Is there a precedent for what to do here?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-10 20:48    [W:0.047 / U:4.664 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site