Re: [RFC PATCH 02/11] arm64: tlb: Add DSB ISHST prior to TLBI in __flush_tlb_[kernel_]pgtable()

From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, benh@au1.ibm.com,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, npiggin@gmail.com,
	catalin.marinas@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/11] arm64: tlb: Add DSB ISHST prior to TLBI in __flush_tlb_[kernel_]pgtable()
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 14:03:27 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180828130326.GB26727@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180824175609.GR24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 07:56:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 04:52:37PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > __flush_tlb_[kernel_]pgtable() rely on set_pXd() having a DSB after
> > writing the new table entry and therefore avoid the barrier prior to the
> > TLBI instruction.
> > 
> > In preparation for delaying our walk-cache invalidation on the unmap()
> > path, move the DSB into the TLB invalidation routines.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> > index 7e2a35424ca4..e257f8655b84 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> > @@ -213,6 +213,7 @@ static inline void __flush_tlb_pgtable(struct mm_struct *mm,
> >  {
> >  	unsigned long addr = __TLBI_VADDR(uaddr, ASID(mm));
> >  
> > +	dsb(ishst);
> >  	__tlbi(vae1is, addr);
> >  	__tlbi_user(vae1is, addr);
> >  	dsb(ish);
> > @@ -222,6 +223,7 @@ static inline void __flush_tlb_kernel_pgtable(unsigned long kaddr)
> >  {
> >  	unsigned long addr = __TLBI_VADDR(kaddr, 0);
> >  
> > +	dsb(ishst);
> >  	__tlbi(vaae1is, addr);
> >  	dsb(ish);
> >  }
> 
> I would suggest these barrier -- like any other barriers, carry a
> comment that explain the required ordering.
> 
> I think this here reads like:
> 
> 	STORE: unhook page
> 
> 	DSB-ishst: wait for all stores to complete
> 	TLBI: invalidate broadcast
> 	DSB-ish: wait for TLBI to complete
> 
> And the 'newly' placed DSB-ishst ensures the page is observed unlinked
> before we issue the invalidate.

Yeah, not a bad idea. We already have a big block comment in this file but
it's desperately out of date, so lemme rewrite that and justify the barriers
at the same time.

Will