+++ /dev/null
-# Resolving ISA conflicts and providing a pain-free RISC-V Standards Upgrade Path
-
-**Note: out-of-date as of review 31apr2018, requires updating to reflect
-"mvendorid-marchid-isamux" concept.**
-
-## Executive Summary
-
-A non-invasive backwards-compatible change to make mvendorid and marchid
-being read-only to be a formal declaration of an architecture having no
-Custom Extensions, and being permitted to be WARL in order to support
-multiple simultaneous architectures on the same processor (or per hart
-or harts) permits not only backwards and forwards compatibility with
-existing implementations of the RISC-V Standard, not only permits seamless
-transitions to future versions of the RISC-V Standard (something that is
-not possible at the moment), but fixes the problem of clashes in Custom
-Extension opcodes on a global worldwide permanent and ongoing basis.
-
-Summary of impact and benefits:
-
-* Implementation impact for existing implementations (even though
- the Standard is not finalised) is zero.
-* Impact for future implementations compliant with (only one) version of the
- RISC-V Standard is zero.
-* Benefits for implementations complying with (one or more) versions
- of the RISC-V Standard is: increased customer acceptance due to
- a smooth upgrade path at the customer's pace and initiative vis-a-vis
- legacy proprietary software.
-* Benefits for implementations deploying multiple Custom Extensions
- are a massive reduction in NREs and the hugely reduced ongoing software
- toolchain maintenance costs plus the benefit of having security updates
- from upstream software sources due to
- *globally unique identifying information* resulting in zero binary
- encoding conflicts in the toolchains and resultant binaries
- *even for Custom Extensions*.
-
-## Introduction
-
-In a lengthy thread that ironically was full of conflict indicative
-of the future direction in which RISC-V will go if left unresolved,
-multiple Custom Extensions were noted to be permitted free rein to
-introduce global binary-encoding conflict with no means of resolution
-described or endorsed by the RISC-V Standard: a practice that has known
-disastrous and irreversible consequences for any architecture that
-permits such practices (1).
-
-Much later on in the discussion it was realised that there is also no way
-within the current RISC-V Specification to transition to improved versions
-of the standard, regardless of whether the fixes are absolutely critical
-show-stoppers or whether they are just keeping the standard up-to-date (2).
-
-With no transition path there is guaranteed to be tension and conflict
-within the RISC-V Community over whether revisions should be made:
-should existing legacy designs be prioritised, mutually-exclusively over
-future designs (and what happens during the transition period is absolute
-chaos, with the compiler toolchain, software ecosystem and ultimately
-the end-users bearing the full brunt of the impact). If several
-overlapping revisions are required that have not yet transitioned out
-of use (which could take well over two decades to occur) the situation
-becomes disastrous for the credibility of the entire RISC-V ecosystem.
-
-It was also pointed out that Compliance is an extremely important factor
-to take into consideration, and that Custom Extensions (as being optional)
-effectively and quite reasonably fall entirely outside of the scope of
-Compliance Testing. At this point in the discussion however it was not
-yet noted the stark problem that the *mandatory* RISC-V Specification
-also faces, by virtue of there being no transitional way to bring in
-show-stopping critical alterations.
-
-To put this into perspective, just taking into account hardware costs
-alone: with production mask charges for 28nm being around USD $1.5m,
-engineering development costs and licensing of RTLs for peripherals
-being of a similar magnitude, no manufacturer is going to back away
-from selling a "flawed" or "legacy" product (whether it complies with
-the RISC-V Specification or not) without a bitter fight.
-
-It was also pointed out that there will be significant software tool
-maintenance costs for manufacturers, meaning that the probability will
-be extremely high that they will refuse to shoulder such costs, and
-will publish and continue to publish (and use) hopelessly out-of-date
-unpatched tools. This practice is well-known to result in security
-flaws going unpatched, with one of many immediate undesirable consequences
-being that product in extremely large volume gets discarded into landfill.
-
-**All and any of the issues that were discussed, and all of those that
-were not, can be avoided by providing a hardware-level runtime-enabled
-forwards and backwards compatible transition path between *all* parts
-(mandatory or not) of current and future revisions of the RISC-V ISA
-Standard.**
-
-The rest of the discussion - indicative as it was of the stark mutually
-exclusive gap being faced by the RISC-V ISA Standard given that it does
-not cope with the problem - was an effort by two groups in two clear
-camps: one that wanted things to remain as they are, and another that
-made efforts to point out that the consequences of not taking action
-are clearly extreme and irreversible (which, unfortunately, given the
-severity, some of the first group were unable to believe, despite there
-being clear historical precedent for the exact same mistake being made in
-other architectures, and the consequences on the same being absolutely
-clear).
-
-However after a significant amount of time, certain clear requirements came
-out of the discussion:
-
-* Any proposal must be a minimal change with minimal (or zero) impact
-* Any proposal should place no restriction on existing or future
- ISA encoding space
-* Any proposal should take into account that there are existing implementors
- of the (yet to be finalised but still "partly frozen") Standard who may
- resist, for financial investment reasons, efforts to make any change
- (at all) that could cost them immediate short-term profits.
-
-Several proposals were put forward (and some are still under discussion)
-
-* "Do nothing": problem is not severe: no action needed.
-* "Do nothing": problem is out-of-scope for RISC-V Foundation.
-* "Do nothing": problem complicates Compliance Testing (and is out of scope)
-* "MISA": the MISA CSR enables and disables extensions already: use that
-* "MISA-like": a new CSR which switches in and out new encodings
- (without destroying state)
-* "mvendorid/marchid WARL": switching the entire "identity" of a machine
-* "ioctl-like": a OO proposal based around the linux kernel "ioctl" system.
-
-Each of these will be discussed below in their own sections.
-
-# Do nothing (no problem exists)
-
-(Summary: not an option)
-
-There were several solutions offered that fell into this category.
-A few of them are listed in the introduction; more are listed below,
-and it was exhaustively (and exhaustingly) established that none of
-them are workable.
-
-Initially it was pointed out that Fabless Semiconductor companies could
-simply license multiple Custom Extensions and a suitable RISC-V core, and
-modify them accordingly. The Fabless Semi Company would be responsible
-for paying the NREs on re-developing the test vectors (as the extension
-licensers would be extremely unlikely to do that without payment), and
-given that said Companies have an "integration" job to do, it would
-be reasonable to expect them to have such additional costs as well.
-
-The costs of this approach were outlined and discussed as being
-disproportionate and extreme compared to the actual likely cost of
-licensing the Custom Extensions in the first place. Additionally it
-was pointed out that not only hardware NREs would be involved but
-custom software tools (compilers and more) would also be required
-(and maintained separately, on the basis that upstream would not
-accept them except under extreme pressure, and then only with
-prejudice).
-
-All similar schemes involving customisation of the custom extensions
-were likewise rejected, but not before the customisation process was
-mistakenly conflated with tne *normal* integration process of developing
-a custom processor (Bus Architectures, Cache layouts, peripheral layouts).
-
-The most compelling hardware-related reason (excluding the severe impact on
-the software ecosystem) for rejecting the customisation-of-customisation
-approach was the case where Extensions were using an instruction encoding
-space (48-bit, 64-bit) *greater* than that which the chosen core could
-cope with (32-bit, 48-bit).
-
-Overall, none of the options presented were feasible, and, in addition,
-with no clear leadership from the RISC-V Foundation on how to avoid
-global world-wide encoding conflict, even if they were followed through,
-still would result in the failure of the RISC-V ecosystem due to
-irreversible global conflicting ISA binary-encoding meanings (POWERPC's
-Altivec / SPE nightmare).
-
-This in addition to the case where the RISC-V Foundation wishes to
-fix a critical show-stopping update to the Standard, post-release,
-where billions of dollars have been spent on deploying RISC-V in the
-field.
-
-# Do nothing (out of scope)
-
-(Summary: may not be RV Foundation's "scope", still results in
-problem, so not an option)
-
-This was one of the first arguments presented: The RISC-V Foundation
-considers Custom Extensions to be "out of scope"; that "it's not their
-problem, therefore there isn't a problem".
-
-The logical errors in this argument were quickly enumerated: namely that
-the RISC-V Foundation is not in control of the uses to which RISC-V is
-put, such that public global conflicts in binary-encoding are a hundred
-percent guaranteed to occur (*outside* of the control and remit of the
-RISC-V Foundation), and a hundred percent guaranteed to occur in
-*commodity* hardware where Debian, Fedora, SUSE and other distros will
-be hardest hit by the resultant chaos, and that will just be the more
-"visible" aspect of the underlying problem.
-
-# Do nothing (Compliance too complex, therefore out of scope)
-
-(Summary: may not be RV Foundation's "scope", still results in
-problem, so not an option)
-
-The summary here was that Compliance testing of Custom Extensions is
-not just out-of-scope, but even if it was taken into account that
-binary-encoding meanings could change, it would still be out-of-scope.
-
-However at the time that this argument was made, it had not yet been
-appreciated fully the impact that revisions to the Standard would have,
-when billions of dollars worth of (older, legacy) RISC-V hardware had
-already been deployed.
-
-Two interestingly diametrically-opposed equally valid arguments exist here:
-
-* Whilst Compliance testing of Custom Extensions is definitely legitimately
- out of scope, Compliance testing of simultaneous legacy (old revisions of
- ISA Standards) and current (new revisions of ISA Standard) definitely
- is not. Efforts to reduce *Compliance Testing* complexity is therefore
- "Compliance Tail Wagging Standard Dog".
-* Beyond a certain threshold, complexity of Compliance Testing is so
- burdensome that it risks outright rejection of the entire Standard.
-
-Meeting these two diametrically-opposed perspectives requires that the
-solution be very, very simple.
-
-# MISA
-
-(Summary: MISA not suitable, leads to better idea)
-
-MISA permits extensions to be disabled by masking out the relevant bit.
-Hypothetically it could be used to disable one extension, then enable
-another that happens to use the same binary encoding.
-
-*However*:
-
-* MISA Extension disabling is permitted (optionally) to **destroy**
- the state information. Thus it is totally unsuitable for cases
- where instructions from different Custom extensions are needed in
- quick succession.
-* MISA was only designed to cover Standard Extensions.
-* There is nothing to prevent multiple Extensions being enabled
- that wish to simultaneously interpret the same binary encoding.
-* There is nothing in the MISA specification which permits
- *future* versions (bug-fixes) of the RISC-V ISA to be "switched in".
-
-Overall, whilst the MISA concept is a step in the right direction it's
-a hundred percent unsuitable for solving the problem.
-
-# MISA-like
-
-(Summary: basically same as mvend/march WARL except needs an extra CSR where
-mv/ma doesn't. Along right lines, doesn't meet full requirements)
-
-Out of the MISA discussion came a "MISA-like" proposal, which would
-take into account the flaws pointed out by trying to use "MISA":
-
-* The MISA-like CSR's meaning would be identified by compilers using the
- mvendor-id/march-id tuple as a compiler target
-* Each custom-defined bit of the MISA-like CSR would (mutually-exclusively)
- redirect binary encoding(s) to specific encodings
-* No Extension would *actually* be disabled: its internal state would
- be left on (permanently) so that switching of ISA decoding
- could be done inside inner loops without adverse impact on
- performance.
-
-Whilst it was the first "workable" solution it was also noted that the
-scheme is invasive: it requires an entirely new CSR to be added
-to the privileged spec (thus making existing implementations redundant).
-This does not fulfil the "minimum impact" requirement.
-
-Also interesting around the same time an additional discussion was
-raised that covered the *compiler* side of the same equation. This
-revolved around using mvendorid-marchid tuples at the compiler level,
-to be put into assembly output (by gcc), preserving the required
-*globally* unique identifying information for binutils to successfully
-turn the custom instruction into an actual binary-encoding (plus
-binary-encoding of the context-switching information). (**TBD, Jacob,
-separate page? review this para?**)
-
-# mvendorid/marchid WARL <a name="mvendor_marchid_warl"></a>
-
-(Summary: the only idea that meets the full requirements. Needs
- toolchain backup, but only when the first chip is released)
-
-This proposal has full details at the following page:
-[[mvendor_march_warl]]
-
-Coming out of the software-related proposal by Jacob Bachmeyer, which
-hinged on the idea of a globally-maintained gcc / binutils database
-that kept and coordinated architectural encodings (curated by the Free
-Software Foundation), was to quite simply make the mvendorid and marchid
-CSRs have WARL (writeable) characteristics. Read-only is taken to
-mean a declaration of "Having no Custom Extensions" (a zero-impact
-change).
-
-By making mvendorid-marchid tuples WARL the instruction decode phase
-may re-route mutually-exclusively to different engines, thus providing
-a controlled means and method of supporting multiple (future, past and
-present) versions of the **Base** ISA, Custom Extensions and even
-completely foreign ISAs in the same processor.
-
-This incredibly simple non-invasive idea has some unique and distinct
-advantages over other proposals:
-
-* Existing designs - even though the specification is not finalised
- (but has "frozen" aspects) - would be completely unaffected: the
- change is to the "wording" of the specification to "retrospectively"
- fit reality.
-* Unlike with the MISA idea this is *purely* at the "decode" phase:
- no internal Extension state information is permitted to be disabled,
- altered or destroyed as a direct result of writing to the
- mvendor/march-id CSRs.
-* Compliance Testing may be carried out with a different vendorid/marchid
- tuple set prior to a test, allowing a vendor to claim *Certified*
- compatibility with *both* one (or more) legacy variants of the RISC-V
- Specification *and* with a present one.
-* With sufficient care taken in the implementation an implementor
- may have multiple interpretations of the same binary encoding within
- an inner loop, with a single instruction (to the WARL register)
- changing the meaning.
-
-**This is the only one of the proposals that meet the full requirements**
-
-# ioctl-like <a name="ioctl-like"></a>
-
-(Summary: good solid orthogonal idea. See [[ioctl]] for [[pluggable extensions]] full details)
-
-NOTE: under discussion.
-
-==RB 2018-5-1 updated to reflect much simplified xext proposal==
-
-The xext proposal defines 8 standardised R-type xcmd0, xcmd1, ...xcmd7 instructions (preferably in the brownfield opcode space)
-that are routed to (sub)devices that implement interfaces with up to 8 (slightly crippled) R type commands.
-Effectively the 8 standard xcmd instructions become overloadable.
-
-One of the reasons for seeking an extension of the Custom opcode space is
-that the Custom opcode space is severely limited: only 2 opcodes are free
-within the 32-bit space, and only four total remain in the 48 and 64-bit
-space. Each xext interface is identified by a 20 bit UUID (or 52 bit on RV64), so there is much more room than in the (32 bit) instruction space. Thus it avoids most of the need to put a claim on obcode space thereby risking collisions when combining independent extensions. In this respect it is much like POSIX ioctls, which obviate the need for defining new syscalls to control new and nonstandard hardware..
-
-
-==RB not sure about this bit==
-The proposal is functionally similar to that of the mvendor/march-id
-==RB==
-except the non standard extension is explicit and restricted to a small set of well defined individual opcodes.
-Hence several extensions can be mixed and there is no state to be tracked over context switches.
-As such it could hypothetically be proposed as an independent Standard Extension.
-
-Despite the proposal (which is still undergoing clarification)
-being worthwhile in its own right, and standing on its own merits and
-thus definitely worthwhile pursuing, it is non-trivial and more
-invasive than the mvendor/march-id WARL concept.
-
-# Comments, Discussion and analysis
-
-TBD: placeholder as of 26apr2018
-
-## new (old) m-a-i tuple idea
-
-> actually that's a good point: where the user decides that they want
-> to boot one and only one tuple (for the entire OS), forcing a HARDWARE
-> level default m-a-i tuple at them actually prevents and prohibits them
-> from doing that, Jacob.
->
-> so we have apps on one RV-Base ISA and apps on an INCOMPATIBLE (future)
-> variant of RV-Base ISA. with the approach that i was advocating (S-mode
-> does NOT switch automatically), there are totally separate mtvec /
-> stvec / bstvec traps.
->
-> would it be reasonable to assume the following:
->
-> (a) RV-Base ISA, particularly code-execution in the critical S-mode
-> trap-handling, is *EXTREMELY* unlikely to ever be changed, even thinking
-> 30 years into the future ?
->
-> (b) if the current M-mode (user app level) context is "RV Base ISA 1"
-> then i would hazard a guess that S-mode is prettty much going to drop
-> down into *exactly* the same mode / context, the majority of the time
->
-> thus the hypothesis is that not only is it the common code-path to *not*
-> switch the ISA in the S-mode trap but that the instructions used are
-> extremely unlikely to be changed between "RV Base Revisions".
->
-> foreign isa hardware-level execution
-> ------------------------
->
-> this is the one i've not really thought through so much, other than it
-> would clearly be disadvantageous for S-mode to be arbitrarily restricted
-> to running RV-Base code (of any variant). a case could be made that by the
-> time the m-a-i tuple is switched to the foreign isa it's "all bets off",
-> foreign arch is "on its own", including having to devise a means and
-> method to switch back (equivalent in its ISA of m-a-i switching).
->
-> conclusion / idea
-> --------------------
->
-> the multi-base "user wants to run one and only one tuple" is the key
-> case, here, that is a show-stopper to the idea of hard-wiring the default
-> S-mode m-a-i.
->
-> now, if instead we were to say, "ok so there should be a default S-mode
-> m-a-i tuple" and it was permitted to SET (choose) that tuple, *that*
-> would solve that problem. it could even be set to the foreign isa.
-> which would be hilarious.
-
-
-# Summary and Conclusion
-
-In the early sections (those in the category "no action") it was established
-in each case that the problem is not solved. Avoidance of responsibility,
-or conflation of "not our problem" with "no problem" does not make "problem"
-go away. Even "making it the Fabless Semiconductor's design problem" resulted
-in a chip being *more costly to engineer as hardware **and** more costly
-from a software-support perspective to maintain*... without actually
-fixing the problem.
-
-The first idea considered which could fix the problem was to just use
-the pre-existing MISA CSR, however this was determined not to have
-the right coverage (Standard Extensions only), and also crucially it
-destroyed state. Whilst unworkable it did lead to the first "workable"
-solution, "MISA-like".
-
-The "MISA-like" proposal, whilst meeting most of the requirements, led to
-a better idea: "mvendor/march-id WARL", which, in combination with an offshoot
-idea related to gcc and binutils, is the only proposal that fully meets the
-requirements.
-
-The "ioctl-like" idea *also* solves the problem, but, unlike the WARL idea
-does not meet the full requirements to be "non-invasive" and "backwards
-compatible" with pre-existing (pre-Standards-finalised) implementations.
-It does however stand on its own merit as a way to extend the extremely
-small Custom Extension opcode space, even if it itself implemented *as*
-a Custom Extension into which *other* Custom Extensions are subsequently
-shoe-horned. This approach has the advantage that it requires no "approval"
-from the RISC-V Foundation... but without the RISC-V Standard "approval"
-guaranteeing no binary-encoding conflicts, still does not actually solve the
-problem (if deployed as a Custom Extension for extending Custom Extensions).
-
-Overall the mvendor/march-id WARL idea meets the three requirements,
-and is the only idea that meets the three requirements:
-
-* **Any proposal must be a minimal change with minimal (or zero) impact**
- (met through being purely a single backwards-compatible change to the
- wording of the specification: mvendor/march-id changes from read-only
- to WARL)
-* **Any proposal should place no restriction on existing or future
- ISA encoding space**
- (met because it is just a change to one pre-existing CSR, as opposed
- to requiring additional CSRs or requiring extra opcodes or changes
- to existing opcodes)
-* **Any proposal should take into account that there are existing implementors
- of the (yet to be finalised but still "partly frozen") Standard who may
- resist, for financial investment reasons, efforts to make any change
- (at all) that could cost them immediate short-term profits.**
- (met because existing implementations, with the exception of those
- that have Custom Extensions, come under the "vendor/arch-id read only
- is a formal declaration of an implementation having no Custom Extensions"
- fall-back category)
-
-So to summarise:
-
-* The consequences of not tackling this are severe: the RISC-V Foundation
- cannot take a back seat. If it does, clear historical precedent shows
- 100% what the outcome will be (1).
-* Making the mvendorid and marchid CSRs WARL solves the problem in a
- minimal to zero-disruptive backwards-compatible fashion that provides
- indefinite transparent *forwards*-compatibility.
-* The retro-fitting cost onto existing implementations (even though the
- specification has not been finalised) is zero to negligeable
- (only changes to words in the specification required at this time:
- no vendor need discard existing designs, either being designed,
- taped out, or actually in production).
-* The benefits are clear (pain-free transition path for vendors to safely
- upgrade over time; no fights over Custom opcode space; no hassle for
- software toolchain; no hassle for GNU/Linux Distros)
-* The implementation details are clear (and problem-free except for
- vendors who insist on deploying dozens of conflicting Custom Extensions:
- an extreme unlikely outlier).
-* Compliance Testing is straightforward and allows vendors to seek and
- obtain *multiple* Compliance Certificates with past, present and future
- variants of the RISC-V Standard (in the exact same processor,
- simultaneously), in order to support end-customer legacy scenarios and
- provide the same with a way to avoid "impossible-to-make" decisions that
- throw out ultra-costly multi-decade-investment in proprietary legacy
- software at the same as the (legacy) hardware.
-
--------
-
-# Conversation Exerpts
-
-The following conversation exerpts are taken from the ISA-dev discussion
-
-## (1) Albert Calahan on SPE / Altiven conflict in POWERPC
-
-> Yes. Well, it should be blocked via legal means. Incompatibility is
-> a disaster for an architecture.
->
-> The viability of PowerPC was badly damaged when SPE was
-> introduced. This was a vector instruction set that was incompatible
-> with the AltiVec instruction set. Software vendors had to choose,
-> and typically the choice was "neither". Nobody wants to put in the
-> effort when there is uncertainty and a market fragmented into
-> small bits.
->
-> Note how Intel did not screw up. When SSE was added, MMX remained.
-> Software vendors could trust that instructions would be supported.
-> Both MMX and SSE remain today, in all shipping processors. With very
-> few exceptions, Intel does not ship chips with missing functionality.
-> There is a unified software ecosystem.
->
-> This goes beyond the instruction set. MMU functionality also matters.
-> You can add stuff, but then it must be implemented in every future CPU.
-> You can not take stuff away without harming the architecture.
-
-## (2) Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton on Standards backwards-compatibility
-
-> For the case where "legacy" variants of the RISC-V Standard are
-> backwards-forwards-compatibly supported over a 10-20 year period in
-> Industrial and Military/Goverment-procurement scenarios (so that the
-> impossible-to-achieve pressure is off to get the spec ABSOLUTELY
-> correct, RIGHT now), nobody would expect a seriously heavy-duty amount
-> of instruction-by-instruction switching: it'd be used pretty much once
-> and only once at boot-up (or once in a Hypervisor Virtual Machine
-> client) and that's it.
-
-## (3) Allen Baum on Standards Compliance
-
-> Putting my compliance chair hat on: One point that was made quite
-> clear to me is that compliance will only test that an implementation
-> correctly implements the portions of the spec that are mandatory, and
-> the portions of the spec that are optional and the implementor claims
-> it is implementing. It will test nothing in the custom extension space,
-> and doesn't monitor or care what is in that space.
-
-## (4) Jacob Bachmeyer on explaining disambiguation of opcode space
-
-> ...have different harts with different sets of encodings.) Adding a "select"
-> CSR as has been proposed does not escape this fundamental truth that
-> instruction decode must be unambiguous, it merely expands every opcode with
-> extra bits from a "select" CSR.
-
-# References
-
-* <https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/forum/#!topic/isa-dev/7bbwSIW5aqM>
-* <https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/forum/#!topic/isa-dev/InzQ1wr_3Ak%5B1-25%5D>
-* Review mvendorid-marchid WARL <https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/forum/#!topic/isa-dev/Uvy9paXN1xA>
projects / libreriscv.git / blobdiff