Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: take CWG into account in __inval_cache_range()

From	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: take CWG into account in __inval_cache_range()
Date	2016-04-19 17:40 +0200
Message-ID	<rpFUR-Dr-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<rpB4S-5lW-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <rpDq2-71o-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <rpDzI-7oD-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <rpEFs-8b6-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <rpF8u-8oB-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 04:48:32PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 19 April 2016 at 16:13, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > The best we could do is to warn if ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN is smaller than CWG
> > (as Robin suggested, we could do this only if we have non-coherent DMA
> > masters via arch_setup_dma_ops()). Quick hack below:
> >
> > -------------------------------8<-----------------------------------
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h
> > index 5082b30bc2c0..5967fcbb617a 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h
> > @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@
> >   * cache before the transfer is done, causing old data to be seen by
> >   * the CPU.
> >   */
> > -#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN      L1_CACHE_BYTES
> > +#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN      128
> >
> >  #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> >
> > @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
> >  static inline int cache_line_size(void)
> >  {
> >         u32 cwg = cache_type_cwg();
> > -       return cwg ? 4 << cwg : L1_CACHE_BYTES;
> > +       return cwg ? 4 << cwg : ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN;
> 
> Unrelated, but this does not look right: if the CWG field is zero, we
> should either assume 2 KB, or iterate over all the CCSIDR values and
> take the maximum linesize.

It may be a better guess but even that is not always relevant since
CCSIDR may not present the real hardware information. It's only meant to
give enough information to be able to do cache maintenance by set/way
and we've seen CPU implementations where this has nothing to do with the
actual cache geometry.

So I don't think we can do anything more than just hard-coding and hope
that implementations where CWG is 0 (or higher than 128) are only
deployed in a fully coherent configuration.

-- 
Catalin

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH] arm64: mm: take CWG into account in __inval_cache_range() Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> - 2016-04-19 12:30 +0200
  Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: take CWG into account in __inval_cache_range() Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-04-19 15:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: take CWG into account in __inval_cache_range() Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> - 2016-04-19 15:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: take CWG into account in __inval_cache_range() Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> - 2016-04-19 16:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: take CWG into account in __inval_cache_range() Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> - 2016-04-19 16:50 +0200
          Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: take CWG into account in __inval_cache_range() Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> - 2016-04-19 17:40 +0200
            Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: take CWG into account in __inval_cache_range() Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> - 2016-04-19 18:10 +0200
          Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: take CWG into account in __inval_cache_range() Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> - 2016-04-19 17:40 +0200

csiph-web