From: Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com> To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>, libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>, Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com>, gdb@sourceware.org, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>, Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Alan Hayward <alan.hayward@arm.com>, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com>, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 08/10] arm64/sve: ptrace: Wire up vector length control and reporting Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:11:56 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20170116151156.GI28060@E107787-LIN> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20170116133231.GO3699@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> On 17-01-16 13:32:31, Dave Martin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:20:38PM +0000, Yao Qi wrote: > > On 17-01-12 11:26:07, Dave Martin wrote: > > > This patch adds support for manipulating a task's vector length at > > > runtime via ptrace. > > > > > > > I hope kernel doesn't provide such interface to ptracer to change vector > > length. > > It does, with this patch, beacuse... > > > The vector length is sort of a read-only property of thread/process/ > > program to debugger, unless we really have a clear requirement to modify > > vector length in debugging. I may miss something because I haven't debug > > SVE code yet. > > ...the vector length is no longer read-only for the task, thanks to > the new prctls(). What I meant "read-only" is that debugger can't change it, while the program itself can change it via prctl(). > > This does add complexity, but I figured that any programmer's model > state that the thread can modify for itself should be modifiable by the > debugger, if for no other reason than the user may want to experiment to > see what happens. Without a ptrace interface, it would be necessary > to inject a prctl() call into the target, which is possible but awkward. We only need such interface if it is useful, see more below. Suppose it is useful to change vector length through ptrace, we should align ptrace interface to prctl() as much as possible. Looks that both prctl change and ptrace change can go through sve_set_vector_length, easy to keep two consistent. > > gdb must already re-detect the vector length on stop, since the target > could have called the prctl() in the meantime. Yes, gdb assumes the vector length may be changed, so it re-detects on every stop, but I don't see the need for gdb to change the vector length. > > Access via ptrace also allows things like trapping on exec, fork or > clone and changing the vector length for the new process or thread > before it starts to run. I'm guessing here, but such a scenario seems > legitimate (?) > Yes, these cases are valid, but the usefulness is still questionable to me. I just doubt that SVE developers do need to change vector length when they are debugging code. Note that it is not my strong objection to this patch, if kernel people believe this is useful, I am fine with it. -- Yao (齐尧)
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: qiyaoltc@gmail.com (Yao Qi) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [RFC PATCH 08/10] arm64/sve: ptrace: Wire up vector length control and reporting Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:11:56 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20170116151156.GI28060@E107787-LIN> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20170116133231.GO3699@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> On 17-01-16 13:32:31, Dave Martin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:20:38PM +0000, Yao Qi wrote: > > On 17-01-12 11:26:07, Dave Martin wrote: > > > This patch adds support for manipulating a task's vector length at > > > runtime via ptrace. > > > > > > > I hope kernel doesn't provide such interface to ptracer to change vector > > length. > > It does, with this patch, beacuse... > > > The vector length is sort of a read-only property of thread/process/ > > program to debugger, unless we really have a clear requirement to modify > > vector length in debugging. I may miss something because I haven't debug > > SVE code yet. > > ...the vector length is no longer read-only for the task, thanks to > the new prctls(). What I meant "read-only" is that debugger can't change it, while the program itself can change it via prctl(). > > This does add complexity, but I figured that any programmer's model > state that the thread can modify for itself should be modifiable by the > debugger, if for no other reason than the user may want to experiment to > see what happens. Without a ptrace interface, it would be necessary > to inject a prctl() call into the target, which is possible but awkward. We only need such interface if it is useful, see more below. Suppose it is useful to change vector length through ptrace, we should align ptrace interface to prctl() as much as possible. Looks that both prctl change and ptrace change can go through sve_set_vector_length, easy to keep two consistent. > > gdb must already re-detect the vector length on stop, since the target > could have called the prctl() in the meantime. Yes, gdb assumes the vector length may be changed, so it re-detects on every stop, but I don't see the need for gdb to change the vector length. > > Access via ptrace also allows things like trapping on exec, fork or > clone and changing the vector length for the new process or thread > before it starts to run. I'm guessing here, but such a scenario seems > legitimate (?) > Yes, these cases are valid, but the usefulness is still questionable to me. I just doubt that SVE developers do need to change vector length when they are debugging code. Note that it is not my strong objection to this patch, if kernel people believe this is useful, I am fine with it. -- Yao (??)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-16 15:11 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2017-01-12 11:25 [RFC PATCH 00/10] arm64/sve: Add userspace vector length control API Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:25 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:25 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:26 ` [RFC PATCH 01/10] prctl: Add skeleton for PR_SVE_{SET,GET}_VL controls Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:26 ` [RFC PATCH 01/10] prctl: Add skeleton for PR_SVE_{SET, GET}_VL controls Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:26 ` [RFC PATCH 02/10] arm64/sve: Track vector length for each task Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:26 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:26 ` [RFC PATCH 03/10] arm64/sve: Set CPU vector length to match current task Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:26 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:26 ` [RFC PATCH 04/10] arm64/sve: Factor out clearing of tasks' SVE regs Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:26 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:26 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:26 ` [RFC PATCH 05/10] arm64/sve: Wire up vector length control prctl() calls Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:26 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:26 ` [RFC PATCH 06/10] arm64/sve: Disallow VL setting for individual threads by default Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:26 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-16 11:34 ` Yao Qi 2017-01-16 11:34 ` Yao Qi 2017-01-16 12:23 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-16 12:23 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:26 ` [RFC PATCH 07/10] arm64/sve: Add vector length inheritance control Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:26 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-16 12:27 ` Yao Qi 2017-01-16 12:27 ` Yao Qi 2017-01-16 13:34 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-16 13:34 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:26 ` [RFC PATCH 08/10] arm64/sve: ptrace: Wire up vector length control and reporting Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:26 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-16 12:20 ` Yao Qi 2017-01-16 12:20 ` Yao Qi 2017-01-16 13:32 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-16 13:32 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-16 15:11 ` Yao Qi [this message] 2017-01-16 15:11 ` Yao Qi 2017-01-16 15:47 ` Pedro Alves 2017-01-16 15:47 ` Pedro Alves 2017-01-16 16:31 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-16 16:31 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-17 10:03 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-17 10:03 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-17 13:31 ` Alan Hayward 2017-01-17 13:31 ` Alan Hayward 2017-01-19 17:11 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-19 17:11 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:26 ` [RFC PATCH 09/10] arm64/sve: Enable default vector length control via procfs Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:26 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:26 ` [RFC PATCH 10/10] Revert "arm64/sve: Limit vector length to 512 bits by default" Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:26 ` Dave Martin 2017-01-12 11:26 ` Dave Martin
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=20170116151156.GI28060@E107787-LIN \ --to=qiyaoltc@gmail.com \ --cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \ --cc=Marc.Zyngier@arm.com \ --cc=alan.hayward@arm.com \ --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \ --cc=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \ --cc=fweimer@redhat.com \ --cc=gdb@sourceware.org \ --cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \ --cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \ --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=szabolcs.nagy@arm.com \ --cc=triegel@redhat.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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.