On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:29 AM Daniel Henrique Barboza
<dbarb...@ventanamicro.com> wrote:
>
> In the same emulated RISC-V host, the 'host' KVM CPU takes 4 times
> longer to boot than the 'rv64' KVM CPU.
>
> The reason is an unintended behavior of riscv_cpu_satp_mode_finalize()
> when satp_mode.supported = 0, i.e. when cpu_init() does not set
> satp_mode_max_supported(). satp_mode_max_from_map(map) does:
>
> 31 - __builtin_clz(map)
>
> This means that, if satp_mode.supported = 0, satp_mode_supported_max
> wil be '31 - 32'. But this is C, so satp_mode_supported_max will gladly
> set it to UINT_MAX (4294967295). After that, if the user didn't set a
> satp_mode, set_satp_mode_default_map(cpu) will make
>
> cfg.satp_mode.map = cfg.satp_mode.supported
>
> So satp_mode.map = 0. And then satp_mode_map_max will be set to
> satp_mode_max_from_map(cpu->cfg.satp_mode.map), i.e. also UINT_MAX. The
> guard "satp_mode_map_max > satp_mode_supported_max" doesn't protect us
> here since both are UINT_MAX.
>
> And finally we have 2 loops:
>
> for (int i = satp_mode_map_max - 1; i >= 0; --i) {
>
> Which are, in fact, 2 loops from UINT_MAX -1 to -1. This is where the
> extra delay when booting the 'host' CPU is coming from.
>
> Commit 43d1de32f8 already set a precedence for satp_mode.supported = 0
> in a different manner. We're doing the same here. If supported == 0,
> interpret as 'the CPU wants the OS to handle satp mode alone' and skip
> satp_mode_finalize().
>
> We'll also put a guard in satp_mode_max_from_map() to assert out if map
> is 0 since the function is not ready to deal with it.
>
> Cc: Alexandre Ghiti <alexgh...@rivosinc.com>
> Fixes: 6f23aaeb9b ("riscv: Allow user to set the satp mode")
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <dbarb...@ventanamicro.com>
Thanks!
Applied to riscv-to-apply.next
Alistair
> ---
> target/riscv/cpu.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu.c b/target/riscv/cpu.c
> index d608026a28..86da93c7bc 100644
> --- a/target/riscv/cpu.c
> +++ b/target/riscv/cpu.c
> @@ -349,6 +349,17 @@ static uint8_t satp_mode_from_str(const char
> *satp_mode_str)
>
> uint8_t satp_mode_max_from_map(uint32_t map)
> {
> + /*
> + * 'map = 0' will make us return (31 - 32), which C will
> + * happily overflow to UINT_MAX. There's no good result to
> + * return if 'map = 0' (e.g. returning 0 will be ambiguous
> + * with the result for 'map = 1').
> + *
> + * Assert out if map = 0. Callers will have to deal with
> + * it outside of this function.
> + */
> + g_assert(map > 0);
> +
> /* map here has at least one bit set, so no problem with clz */
> return 31 - __builtin_clz(map);
> }
> @@ -1387,9 +1398,15 @@ void riscv_cpu_validate_set_extensions(RISCVCPU *cpu,
> Error **errp)
> static void riscv_cpu_satp_mode_finalize(RISCVCPU *cpu, Error **errp)
> {
> bool rv32 = riscv_cpu_mxl(&cpu->env) == MXL_RV32;
> - uint8_t satp_mode_map_max;
> - uint8_t satp_mode_supported_max =
> - satp_mode_max_from_map(cpu->cfg.satp_mode.supported);
> + uint8_t satp_mode_map_max, satp_mode_supported_max;
> +
> + /* The CPU wants the OS to decide which satp mode to use */
> + if (cpu->cfg.satp_mode.supported == 0) {
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + satp_mode_supported_max =
> + satp_mode_max_from_map(cpu->cfg.satp_mode.supported);
>
> if (cpu->cfg.satp_mode.map == 0) {
> if (cpu->cfg.satp_mode.init == 0) {
> --
> 2.41.0
>
>
