On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 01:37:32PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> +/**
> + * __uniphier_cache_maint_common - run a queue operation for a particular
> level
> + *
> + * @data: cache controller specific data
> + * @start: start address of range operation (don't care for "all" operation)
> + * @size: data size of range operation (don't care for "all" operation)
> + * @operation: flags to specify the desired cache operation
> + */
> +static void __uniphier_cache_maint_common(struct uniphier_cache_data *data,
> + unsigned long start,
> + unsigned long size,
> + u32 operation)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + /*
> + * The IRQ must be disable during this sequence because the accessor
> + * holds the access right of the operation queue registers. The IRQ
> + * should be restored after releasing the register access right.
> + */
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> +
> + /* clear the complete notification flag */
> + writel_relaxed(UNIPHIER_SSCOLPQS_EF, data->op_base + UNIPHIER_SSCOLPQS);
> +
> + /*
> + * We do not need a spin lock here because the hardware guarantees
> + * this sequence is atomic, i.e. the write access is arbitrated
> + * and only the winner's write accesses take effect.
> + * After register settings, we need to check the UNIPHIER_SSCOPPQSEF to
> + * see if we won the arbitration or not.
> + * If the command was not successfully set, just try again.
> + */
> + do {
> + /* set cache operation */
> + writel_relaxed(UNIPHIER_SSCOQM_CE | operation,
> + data->op_base + UNIPHIER_SSCOQM);
> +
> + /* set address range if needed */
> + if (likely(UNIPHIER_SSCOQM_S_IS_RANGE(operation))) {
> + writel_relaxed(start, data->op_base + UNIPHIER_SSCOQAD);
> + writel_relaxed(size, data->op_base + UNIPHIER_SSCOQSZ);
> + }
> +
> + /* set target ways if needed */
> + if (unlikely(UNIPHIER_SSCOQM_TID_IS_WAY(operation)))
> + writel_relaxed(data->way_locked_mask,
> + data->op_base + UNIPHIER_SSCOQWN);
> + } while (unlikely(readl_relaxed(data->op_base + UNIPHIER_SSCOPPQSEF) &
> + (UNIPHIER_SSCOPPQSEF_FE | UNIPHIER_SSCOPPQSEF_OE)));
> +
> + /* wait until the operation is completed */
> + while (likely(readl_relaxed(data->op_base + UNIPHIER_SSCOLPQS) !=
> + UNIPHIER_SSCOLPQS_EF))
> + cpu_relax();
> +
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
I'm concerned about this. We've had caches like this (ARM L220) which
require only one operation to be performed at a time. In a SMP system,
that requires a spinlock to prevent one CPU triggering a L2 maintanence
operation while another CPU tries to operate on the L2 cache.
>From the overall series diffstat, I see that you are adding SMP support
too. So I have to ask the obvious question: if you need to disable
local IRQs around the L2 cache operations, what happens if two CPUs
both try to perform a L2 cache operation concurrently?
--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
