RE: [EXT] Re: The problem about arm64: io: Relax implicit barriers in default I/O accessors

[Frank Li <frank.li@nxp.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 12:42 PM
> To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Zhi Li <lznuaa@gmail.com>; Frank Li <frank.li@nxp.com>; Shenwei Wang
> <shenwei.wang@nxp.com>; Han Xu <han.xu@nxp.com>; Nitin Garg
> <nitin.garg@nxp.com>; Jason Liu <jason.hui.liu@nxp.com>; linux-arm-
> kernel@lists.infradead.org
> Subject: [EXT] Re: The problem about arm64: io: Relax implicit barriers in
> default I/O accessors
> 
> Caution: EXT Email
> 
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 06:25:28PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 10:27:44AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 02:24:39PM -0500, Zhi Li wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 2:18 PM Frank Li <frank.li@nxp.com> wrote:
> > > > > Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > > It would also be helpful to know a bit more about the hardware:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   - What is the "internal bus fabric"?
> > > >
> > > > > Look like ARM call as "Interconnect",  Multi AXI master and multi
> AXI slave
> > > > > connected together.
> > > >
> > > > I  drawed simplified bus structure.
> > > >
> > > >         ┌──────┐ ┌────┐
> > > >         │ A53  │ │A72 │
> > > >         └───┬──┘ └─┬──┘
> > > >             │      │
> > > >         ┌───▼──────▼──┐
> > > >         │    CCI400   │
> > > >         └─────┬───────┘
> > > >               │   1 (a)write to ddr (normal uncached memory)
> > > >               │   DMB OSHST
> > > >               │   2 (b)write to usb register(device, nGnRE)
> > > >         ┌─────▼───────────────────────┐       ┌
> ───────────┐
> > > >         │                             ◄───────┤   GPU     │
> > > >         │     Bus fabric              │       │           │
> > > >         └────────────────────────────┬┘       └
> ───────────┘
> > > > 3 (b) reach usb   ▲ 4 usb read   ▲   │ 6.(a)reach
> > > >          │        │   ddr        │   │
> > > >       ┌──▼────────┴─┐            │   │
> > > >       │             │            │   │
> > > >       │  USB        │      5.usb │   │
> > > >       │             │      read  │   │
> > > >       └─────────────┘            │   │
> > > >                                ┌─┴───▼─┐
> > > >                                │       │
> > > >                                │ DDR   │
> > > >                                │       │
> > > >                                └───────┘
> > >
> > > Since you sent an HTML message, it was rejected by the list server. The
> > > above is a plain-text rendition by w3m (and changed barrier() to DMB
> > > OSHST).
> > >
> > > Is the DMB propagated to the bus fabric? IIUC, our logic is that if the
> > > write (b) to USB is observable by, let's say, the GPU, the same GPU
> > > should also observe the write (a) to DDR. Since the write (a) to DDR is
> > > globally observable, the USB device read at (4) should also observe it
> > > (well, we may be wrong).
> >
> > It's pretty rare for barriers to propagate onto the fabric -- usually the
> > CPU just orders everything based on acknowledgements. If the CCI gives
> the
> > write response for the non-cacheable write I could see that causing an
> issue
> > if the bus fabric can then reorder accesses, but then I would argue
> that's a
> > broken system because simple ring buffers in non-cacheable memory would
> fail

Bus fabric don't reorder the same axi master. 
https://elinux.org/images/7/73/Deacon-weak-to-weedy.pdf
Page 42 show race condition. I think above race condition happen at our system.
I am not sure if it is exist at Armv8 system.

> > for peripherals hooking into the bus fabric (i.e. dma_*mb() would be
> > broken). I think it would also mean that DSB doesn't necessarily fix the
> > issue, it probably just makes it less likely because it takes longer to
> > get the device write out after the acknowledgement -- ndelay() would
> achieve
> > the same effect :)

That's what I worried. 

> >
> > Frank -- what happens if you try either DMB SY, or DMB OSH (without the
> ST)
> > in writel()?

It works well for 2 hours! Normally, problem happen below 10min. So I think DMB SY
can fix it. 

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h
index c3009b0e52393..277c9d1c1a8fa 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@

 #define dma_mb()       dmb(osh)
 #define dma_rmb()      dmb(oshld)
-#define dma_wmb()      dmb(oshst)
+#define dma_wmb()      dmb(sy)

> 
> Also, digging into the A72 TRM there are a bunch of configuration signals
> in this area; see SYSBARDISABLE and BROADCASTOUTER, for example.
> 
> Does the failure happen on both a53 and a72, or only on one CPU type?

Both A53, A72 have this problem. 

> 
> Will
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel