On 03/06/2018 09:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Shanker,
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 08:47:27AM -0600, Shanker Donthineni wrote:
>> On 03/06/2018 07:44 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> I think this is a slight asymmetry with the code for the I-side. On the
>>> I-side, you hook into invalidate_icache_by_line, whereas on the D-side you
>>> hook into the callers of dcache_by_line_op. Why is that?
>> There is no particular reason other than complexity of the macro with
>> alternative. I tried to avoid this change by updating
>> I can change if you're interested to see both I-Side and D-Side changes are
>> symmetric some thing like this...
>> .macro dcache_by_line_op op, domain, kaddr, size, tmp1, tmp2
>> .if (\op == cvau)
>> alternative_if ARM64_HAS_CACHE_IDC
>> dsb ishst
>> b 9997f
>> dcache_line_size \tmp1, \tmp2
>> add \size, \kaddr, \size
>> sub \tmp2, \tmp1, #1
>> bic \kaddr, \kaddr, \tmp2
>> .if (\op == cvau || \op == cvac)
>> alternative_if_not ARM64_WORKAROUND_CLEAN_CACHE
>> dc \op, \kaddr
>> dc civac, \kaddr
>> .elseif (\op == cvap)
>> alternative_if ARM64_HAS_DCPOP
>> sys 3, c7, c12, 1, \kaddr // dc cvap
>> dc cvac, \kaddr
>> dc \op, \kaddr
>> add \kaddr, \kaddr, \tmp1
>> cmp \kaddr, \size
>> b.lo 9998b
>> dsb \domain
> I think it would be cleaner the other way round, actually -- move the check
> out of invalidate_icache_by_line and into its two callers.
Sure, I'll send out the next patch with your suggestions.
>>> I notice that the only user other than
>>> flush_icache_range/__flush_cache_user_range or invalidate_icache_by_line
>>> is in KVM, via invalidate_icache_range. If you want to hook in there, why
>>> aren't you also patching __flush_icache_all? If so, I'd rather have the
>>> I-side code consistent with the D-side code and do this in the handful of
>>> callers. We might even be able to elide a branch or two that way.
>> Agree with you, it saves function calls overhead. I'll do this change...
>> static void invalidate_icache_guest_page(kvm_pfn_t pfn, unsigned long size)
>> if (cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_CACHE_DIC)
>> __invalidate_icache_guest_page(pfn, size);
>>> I'm going to assume that I-cache aliases are all coherent if DIC=1, so it's
>>> safe to elide our alias sync code.
>> I'm not sure about I-cache whether aliases are all coherent if DIC=1 ot not.
>> Unfortunately I don't have any hardware to test DIC=1. I've verified IDC=1.
> I checked with our architects and aliases don't pose a problem here, so you
> can ignore me :)
I also confirmed with Thomas Speier, we can skip __flush_icache_all() if DIC=1.
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux
Foundation Collaborative Project.