All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "kwangwoo.lee@sk.com" <kwangwoo.lee@sk.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"Will Deacon" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Cc: "hyunchul3.kim@sk.com" <hyunchul3.kim@sk.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"woosuk.chung@sk.com" <woosuk.chung@sk.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] arm64: mm: convert __dma_* routines to use start, size
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:08:09 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b0d9ef6b59364c4587f8d7c2493160ed@nmail01.hynixad.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c355debc-0238-ff51-ca90-6e0c8085366b@arm.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Murphy [mailto:robin.murphy@arm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 6:56 PM
> To: 이광우(LEE KWANGWOO) MS SW; Russell King - ARM Linux; Catalin Marinas; Will Deacon; Mark Rutland;
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> Cc: 김현철(KIM HYUNCHUL) MS SW; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; 정우석(CHUNG WOO SUK) MS SW
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: mm: convert __dma_* routines to use start, size
> 
> On 27/07/16 02:55, kwangwoo.lee@sk.com wrote:
> [...]
> >>>  /*
> >>> - *	__dma_clean_range(start, end)
> >>> + *	__dma_clean_area(start, size)
> >>>   *	- start   - virtual start address of region
> >>> - *	- end     - virtual end address of region
> >>> + *	- size    - size in question
> >>>   */
> >>> -__dma_clean_range:
> >>> -	dcache_line_size x2, x3
> >>> -	sub	x3, x2, #1
> >>> -	bic	x0, x0, x3
> >>> -1:
> >>> +__dma_clean_area:
> >>>  alternative_if_not ARM64_WORKAROUND_CLEAN_CACHE
> >>> -	dc	cvac, x0
> >>> +	dcache_by_line_op cvac, sy, x0, x1, x2, x3
> >>>  alternative_else
> >>> -	dc	civac, x0
> >>> +	dcache_by_line_op civac, sy, x0, x1, x2, x3
> >>
> >> dcache_by_line_op is a relatively large macro - is there any way we can
> >> still apply the alternative to just the one instruction which needs it,
> >> as opposed to having to patch the entire mostly-identical routine?
> >
> > I agree with your opinion. Then, how do you think about using CONFIG_* options
> > like below? I think that alternative_* macros seems to keep the space for
> > unused instruction. Is it necessary? Please, share your thought about the
> > space. Thanks!
> >
> > +__dma_clean_area:
> > +#if    defined(CONFIG_ARM64_ERRATUM_826319) || \
> > +       defined(CONFIG_ARM64_ERRATUM_827319) || \
> > +       defined(CONFIG_ARM64_ERRATUM_824069) || \
> > +       defined(CONFIG_ARM64_ERRATUM_819472)
> > +       dcache_by_line_op civac, sy, x0, x1, x2, x3
> > +#else
> > +       dcache_by_line_op cvac, sy, x0, x1, x2, x3
> > +#endif
> 
> That's not ideal, because we still only really want to use the
> workaround if we detect a CPU which needs it, rather than baking it in
> at compile time. I was thinking more along the lines of pushing the
> alternative down into dcache_by_line_op, something like the idea below
> (compile-tested only, may not actually be viable).

OK. Using the capability of CPU features seems to be preferred.

> Robin.
> 
> -----8<-----
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h
> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h
> index 10b017c4bdd8..1c005c90387e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h
> @@ -261,7 +261,16 @@ lr	.req	x30		// link register
>  	add	\size, \kaddr, \size
>  	sub	\tmp2, \tmp1, #1
>  	bic	\kaddr, \kaddr, \tmp2
> -9998:	dc	\op, \kaddr
> +9998:
> +	.ifeqs "\op", "cvac"
> +alternative_if_not ARM64_WORKAROUND_CLEAN_CACHE
> +	dc	cvac, \kaddr
> +alternative_else
> +	dc	civac, \kaddr
> +alternative_endif
> +	.else
> +	dc	\op, \kaddr
> +	.endif
>  	add	\kaddr, \kaddr, \tmp1
>  	cmp	\kaddr, \size
>  	b.lo	9998b

I agree that it looks not viable because it makes the macro bigger and
conditional specifically with CVAC op.

Then.. if the number of the usage of alternative_* macros for erratum is
few (just one in this case for cache clean), I think only small change like
below seems to be optimal and there is no need to create a variant macro of
dcache_cache_by_line_op. How do you think about it?

/*
- *     __dma_clean_range(start, end)
+ *     __clean_dcache_area_poc(kaddr, size)
+ *
+ *     Ensure that any D-cache lines for the interval [kaddr, kaddr+size)
+ *     are cleaned to the PoC.
+ *
+ *     - kaddr   - kernel address
+ *     - size    - size in question
+ */
+ENTRY(__clean_dcache_area_poc)
+       /* FALLTHROUGH */
+
+/*
+ *     __dma_clean_area(start, size)
  *     - start   - virtual start address of region
- *     - end     - virtual end address of region
+ *     - size    - size in question
  */
-__dma_clean_range:
+__dma_clean_area:
+       add     x1, x1, x0
        dcache_line_size x2, x3
        sub     x3, x2, #1
        bic     x0, x0, x3
@@ -158,24 +172,21 @@ alternative_endif
        b.lo    1b
        dsb     sy
        ret
-ENDPROC(__dma_clean_range)
+ENDPIPROC(__clean_dcache_area_poc)
+ENDPROC(__dma_clean_area)

Regards,
Kwangwoo Lee

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: kwangwoo.lee@sk.com (kwangwoo.lee at sk.com)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] arm64: mm: convert __dma_* routines to use start, size
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:08:09 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b0d9ef6b59364c4587f8d7c2493160ed@nmail01.hynixad.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c355debc-0238-ff51-ca90-6e0c8085366b@arm.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Murphy [mailto:robin.murphy at arm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 6:56 PM
> To: ???(LEE KWANGWOO) MS SW; Russell King - ARM Linux; Catalin Marinas; Will Deacon; Mark Rutland;
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> Cc: ???(KIM HYUNCHUL) MS SW; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; ???(CHUNG WOO SUK) MS SW
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: mm: convert __dma_* routines to use start, size
> 
> On 27/07/16 02:55, kwangwoo.lee at sk.com wrote:
> [...]
> >>>  /*
> >>> - *	__dma_clean_range(start, end)
> >>> + *	__dma_clean_area(start, size)
> >>>   *	- start   - virtual start address of region
> >>> - *	- end     - virtual end address of region
> >>> + *	- size    - size in question
> >>>   */
> >>> -__dma_clean_range:
> >>> -	dcache_line_size x2, x3
> >>> -	sub	x3, x2, #1
> >>> -	bic	x0, x0, x3
> >>> -1:
> >>> +__dma_clean_area:
> >>>  alternative_if_not ARM64_WORKAROUND_CLEAN_CACHE
> >>> -	dc	cvac, x0
> >>> +	dcache_by_line_op cvac, sy, x0, x1, x2, x3
> >>>  alternative_else
> >>> -	dc	civac, x0
> >>> +	dcache_by_line_op civac, sy, x0, x1, x2, x3
> >>
> >> dcache_by_line_op is a relatively large macro - is there any way we can
> >> still apply the alternative to just the one instruction which needs it,
> >> as opposed to having to patch the entire mostly-identical routine?
> >
> > I agree with your opinion. Then, how do you think about using CONFIG_* options
> > like below? I think that alternative_* macros seems to keep the space for
> > unused instruction. Is it necessary? Please, share your thought about the
> > space. Thanks!
> >
> > +__dma_clean_area:
> > +#if    defined(CONFIG_ARM64_ERRATUM_826319) || \
> > +       defined(CONFIG_ARM64_ERRATUM_827319) || \
> > +       defined(CONFIG_ARM64_ERRATUM_824069) || \
> > +       defined(CONFIG_ARM64_ERRATUM_819472)
> > +       dcache_by_line_op civac, sy, x0, x1, x2, x3
> > +#else
> > +       dcache_by_line_op cvac, sy, x0, x1, x2, x3
> > +#endif
> 
> That's not ideal, because we still only really want to use the
> workaround if we detect a CPU which needs it, rather than baking it in
> at compile time. I was thinking more along the lines of pushing the
> alternative down into dcache_by_line_op, something like the idea below
> (compile-tested only, may not actually be viable).

OK. Using the capability of CPU features seems to be preferred.

> Robin.
> 
> -----8<-----
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h
> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h
> index 10b017c4bdd8..1c005c90387e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h
> @@ -261,7 +261,16 @@ lr	.req	x30		// link register
>  	add	\size, \kaddr, \size
>  	sub	\tmp2, \tmp1, #1
>  	bic	\kaddr, \kaddr, \tmp2
> -9998:	dc	\op, \kaddr
> +9998:
> +	.ifeqs "\op", "cvac"
> +alternative_if_not ARM64_WORKAROUND_CLEAN_CACHE
> +	dc	cvac, \kaddr
> +alternative_else
> +	dc	civac, \kaddr
> +alternative_endif
> +	.else
> +	dc	\op, \kaddr
> +	.endif
>  	add	\kaddr, \kaddr, \tmp1
>  	cmp	\kaddr, \size
>  	b.lo	9998b

I agree that it looks not viable because it makes the macro bigger and
conditional specifically with CVAC op.

Then.. if the number of the usage of alternative_* macros for erratum is
few (just one in this case for cache clean), I think only small change like
below seems to be optimal and there is no need to create a variant macro of
dcache_cache_by_line_op. How do you think about it?

/*
- *     __dma_clean_range(start, end)
+ *     __clean_dcache_area_poc(kaddr, size)
+ *
+ *     Ensure that any D-cache lines for the interval [kaddr, kaddr+size)
+ *     are cleaned to the PoC.
+ *
+ *     - kaddr   - kernel address
+ *     - size    - size in question
+ */
+ENTRY(__clean_dcache_area_poc)
+       /* FALLTHROUGH */
+
+/*
+ *     __dma_clean_area(start, size)
  *     - start   - virtual start address of region
- *     - end     - virtual end address of region
+ *     - size    - size in question
  */
-__dma_clean_range:
+__dma_clean_area:
+       add     x1, x1, x0
        dcache_line_size x2, x3
        sub     x3, x2, #1
        bic     x0, x0, x3
@@ -158,24 +172,21 @@ alternative_endif
        b.lo    1b
        dsb     sy
        ret
-ENDPROC(__dma_clean_range)
+ENDPIPROC(__clean_dcache_area_poc)
+ENDPROC(__dma_clean_area)

Regards,
Kwangwoo Lee

  reply	other threads:[~2016-07-28  0:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-07-26  7:34 [PATCH v2] arm64: mm: convert __dma_* routines to use start, size Kwangwoo Lee
2016-07-26  7:34 ` Kwangwoo Lee
2016-07-26 10:43 ` Robin Murphy
2016-07-26 10:43   ` Robin Murphy
2016-07-27  1:55   ` kwangwoo.lee
2016-07-27  1:55     ` kwangwoo.lee at sk.com
2016-07-27  9:56     ` Robin Murphy
2016-07-27  9:56       ` Robin Murphy
2016-07-28  0:08       ` kwangwoo.lee [this message]
2016-07-28  0:08         ` kwangwoo.lee at sk.com
2016-07-29 17:06         ` Robin Murphy
2016-07-29 17:06           ` Robin Murphy
2016-07-31 23:45           ` kwangwoo.lee
2016-07-31 23:45             ` kwangwoo.lee at sk.com
2016-08-01 13:36             ` Robin Murphy
2016-08-01 13:36               ` Robin Murphy
2016-08-01 13:53               ` Robin Murphy
2016-08-01 13:53                 ` Robin Murphy
2016-08-01 23:24                 ` kwangwoo.lee
2016-08-01 23:24                   ` kwangwoo.lee at sk.com

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=b0d9ef6b59364c4587f8d7c2493160ed@nmail01.hynixad.com \
    --to=kwangwoo.lee@sk.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=hyunchul3.kim@sk.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=woosuk.chung@sk.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.