[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] target/riscv: Support SW update of PTE A/D bits and Ssptwad

From: Alistair Francis
Subject: Re: [PATCH] target/riscv: Support SW update of PTE A/D bits and Ssptwad extension
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 15:29:51 +1000

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 1:52 PM Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 5:02 AM Jim Shu <jim.shu@sifive.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Anup,
> >
> > Do you think it is OK if we only use ssptwad as a CPU option name
> > but not a RISC-V extension? just like MMU and PMP options of RISC-V.
> > (And we could change it to RISC-V extension in the future
> > if Ssptwad becomes the formal RISC-V extension)
> >
> > Both HW/SW update schemes are already defined in RISC-V priv spec,
> > so I think it's reasonable to implement them in QEMU. The only issue here is
> > to choose a proper CPU option name to turn on/off HW update of A/D bits.
> I am not saying that we should avoid implementing it in QEMU.
> My suggestion is to differentiate HW optionalities from ISA extensions
> in QEMU. For example, instead of referring to this as Ssptwad, we should
> call it "hw_ptwad" or "opt_ptwad" and don't use the "ext_" prefix.
> @Alistair Francis might have better suggestions on this ?

I'm just trying to wrap my head around this.

So the priv spec has this line:

"Two schemes to manage the A and D bits are permitted"

The first scheme just raises a page-fault exception, the second scheme
updates the A/D bits as you would expect.

The profiles spec then states that you must do the second scheme, as
that is what all software expects.

This patch is adding optional support for the first scheme.

Why do we want to support that? We can do either and we are
implementing the much more usual scheme. I don't see a reason to
bother implementing the other one. Is anyone ever going to use it?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]