Re: [PATCH 1/1] target/riscv: Remove redundant insn length check for zama16b

[LIU Zhiwei]

On 2024/7/23 13:59, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 7/23/24 15:29, LIU Zhiwei wrote:
> > The more detailed information about its meaning is in priviledged 
> > 1.13 specification. More exactly, in 3.6.4. Misaligned Atomicity 
> > Granule PMA.
> >
> > The specification said:
> >
> > "The misaligned atomicity granule PMA applies only to AMOs, loads and 
> > stores defined in the base
> > ISAs, and loads and stores of no more than MXLEN bits defined in the 
> > F, D, and Q extensions. For an
> > instruction in that set, if all accessed bytes lie within the same 
> > misaligned atomicity granule, the
> > instruction will not raise an exception for reasons of address 
> > alignment, and the instruction will give
> > rise to only one memory operation for the purposes of RVWMO—i.e., it 
> > will execute atomically."
> >
> > That's the reason why I do not apply zama16b to compressed instructions.
> Given the non-specificity of this paragraph, I think not specifically 
> calling out compressed forms of the base ISA is simply a documentation 
> error.  In general, the compressed ISA is supposed to be a smaller 
> encoding of the exact same instruction as the standard ISA.
I will confirm this with the RISC-V community. Thanks.
> However!  It does explicitly say "no more than MXLEN bits", which 
> means that an RV32/RV64 check is appropriate for FLD/FSD, since MXLEN 
> may be less than 64.
Yes.  That's true. Although I don't know why MXLEN is needed as F, D or 
Q don't depend on MXLEN. We can implement D extension on RV32 CPU.
> In addition, your change for AMOs is incomplete.  From the text:
>
>   If a misaligned AMO accesses a region that does not specify a 
> misaligned
>   atomicity granule PMA, or if not all accessed bytes lie within the same
>   misaligned atomicity granule, then an exception is raised.
>
> The second clause corresponds exactly with the Arm FEAT_LSE2.
> See check_lse2_align in target/arm/tcg/translate-a64.c.
>
>
> r~
>
>
> PS: The first clause is similar to Arm access to pages marked as 
> Device memory, for which all misaligned accesses trap.  I didn't dig 
> deep enough to see how PMAs are defined to suggest how that might be 
> applied.

It's more complex than I once thought. I will do more work before 
sending next version.

Thanks,
Zhiwei