From: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>
Cc: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>, musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [musl] riscv32 v2
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:01:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b6a3f7dd-57a9-a839-4a68-03401dab8f21@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a23zgkwhGC8FEMXStcdCgEK_Ak58zQ8SV8Gkbm8+MABOw@mail.gmail.com>
On 9/10/20 8:36 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 1:08 AM Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Sep 2020 14:36:44 PDT (-0700), dalias@libc.org wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 02:28:55PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 09 Sep 2020 13:28:27 PDT (-0700), dalias@libc.org wrote:
>>> Possible addition of vdso clock_gettime isn't a blocker for moving
>>> forward with the musl port, but syscall_arch.h should accurately
>>> describe what's available and should not attempt to use vdso before
>>> it's a public kernel interface (e.g. resolving the question of what
>>> the function name will be). So I think it should be removed for now.
>>
>> Sorry if that was confusing, but I definitely agree.
>>
>> I guess my point was that the lack of VDSO clock functions on rv32 was probably
>> an oversight, but one that shouldn't block the port. We definitely can't just
>> make up a kernel interface, particularly as the reason we don't have these on
>> rv32 is because the generic versions of the functions we're using don't appear
>> to run on 32-bit targets.
>>
>> That probably means there's some more subtle issue, though TBH I don't know
>> enough about the 64-bit-ification of time_t for it to just jump out at me. I
>> don't want to derail the thread too much, but I tried the obvious thing
>
> When the vdso for rv64 was added, there was no time64 support in the
> vdso code in general, as this only came with the "generic vdso" infrastructure
> that was added later on, with commit ad5d1122b82f ("riscv: use vDSO
> common flow to reduce the latency of the time-related functions") in v5.8.
>
> At that point it probably should have been added as well.
>
>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/vdso/Makefile
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/vdso/Makefile
>> @@ -7,9 +7,7 @@ ARCH_REL_TYPE_ABS := R_RISCV_32|R_RISCV_64|R_RISCV_JUMP_SLOT
>> include $(srctree)/lib/vdso/Makefile
>> # Symbols present in the vdso
>> vdso-syms = rt_sigreturn
>> -ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
>> vdso-syms += vgettimeofday
>> -endif
>> vdso-syms += getcpu
>> vdso-syms += flush_icache
>>
>> and it doesn't build. I've added Arnd, who might have a better idea of what's
>> going on. Whatever happens, I think the best bet is to just drop the clock
>> functions (specifically __vdso_{clock_gettime,gettimeofday,clock_getres}) from
>> the rv32 port right now.
>
> For rv32 you need clock_gettime64, not clock_gettime, which in the Linux
> ABI refers to the interface with the old timespec. There was some debate
> over whether clock_getres_time64 and gettimeofday_time64 would make
> sense to be added here, but I have so far leaned to the position that these
> are not as performance critical and not worth the effort.
>
> Vincenzo has argued that we might want to extend the generic vdso code
> to include a number of additional syscall implementations, which would
> then include gettimeofday_time64 and clock_getres_time64.
>
I agree with Arnd, clock_getres_time64 and gettimeofday_time64 were not added in
the original port because not considered as performance critical as
clock_gettime64. We might reconsider if there is a strong use case for those.
> Arnd
>
--
Regards,
Vincenzo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-10 13:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-04 5:48 Stefan O'Rear
2020-09-07 10:47 ` Stefan O'Rear
2020-09-07 18:06 ` Rich Felker
2020-09-07 21:35 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-09-07 21:45 ` Rich Felker
2020-09-07 21:58 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-09-07 22:11 ` Rich Felker
2020-09-07 22:30 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-09-08 1:02 ` Rich Felker
2020-09-08 7:00 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-09-07 11:27 ` Stefan O'Rear
2020-09-07 18:09 ` Rich Felker
2020-09-08 1:54 ` Rich Felker
2020-09-09 6:07 ` Rich Felker
2020-09-09 20:28 ` Rich Felker
2020-09-09 21:28 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2020-09-09 21:36 ` Rich Felker
2020-09-09 23:08 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2020-09-10 7:36 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-09-10 10:01 ` Vincenzo Frascino [this message]
2020-09-11 0:08 ` Palmer Dabbelt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=b6a3f7dd-57a9-a839-4a68-03401dab8f21@arm.com \
--to=vincenzo.frascino@arm.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=dalias@libc.org \
--cc=musl@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=palmerdabbelt@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).