From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: "Wang, Li" <li.wang@windriver.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: mmu: no write cache for O_SYNC flag
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 17:02:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200327170248.GC94838@C02TD0UTHF1T.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6fc201bf-ad0c-3dae-783e-c9c9e4ac034e@windriver.com>
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 12:47:32AM +0800, Wang, Li wrote:
>
> 在 2020/3/27 22:29, Mark Rutland 写道:
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 09:36:25AM -0700, Li Wang wrote:
> > > reproduce steps:
> > > 1.
> > > disable CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM in linux kernel
> > > 2.
> > > Process A gets a Physical Address of global variable by
> > > "/proc/self/pagemap".
> > > 3.
> > > Process B writes a value to the same Physical Address by mmap():
> > > fd=open("/dev/mem",O_SYNC);
> > > Virtual Address=mmap(fd);
> > Is this just to demonstrate the behaviour, or is this meant to be
> > indicative of a real use-case? I'm struggling to see the latter.
> >
> > > problem symptom:
> > > after Process B write a value to the Physical Address,
> > > Process A of the value of global variable does not change.
> > > They both W/R the same Physical Address.
> > If Process A is not using the same attributes as process B, there is no
> > guarantee of coherency. How did process A map this memory?
>
>
> about 2 Process:
>
> Process A:
>
> the memory is not declared by map function, it is just a global variable.
Then it is exactly as I described previously, and Process A has it
mapped with a Normal Write-Back Cacheable mappping.
Process B requests a mapping of that memory via /dev/mem. It passes the
O_SYNC flag, and to ensure that accesses go to "the underlying hardware"
the kernel makes this mapping Normal Non-Cacheable (which means it
should not look in a cache, or be allocated into one).
The two mappings are not coherent because process A uses the cache, but
process B does not. This is the expected behaviour, consistent with the
semantic of O_SYNC. If you need the two to be coherent, they must both
use the same attributes.
Process B can be coherent with process A if it does *not* pass O_SYNC,
which would give it a Normal Write-Back Cacheable mapping that was
coherent with process A.
> if you agree that O_SYNC flag means "is transferred to the underlying
> hardware",
>
> the arm64 does not do that:
>
> when use O_SYNC flag under arm64 arch, it adds write cache feature,
As above, this is not the case. O_SYNC causes the kernel to use a
non-cacheable mapping, where it would normally create a cacheable
mapping. i.e. O_SYNC *removes* cacheability.
It just happens that process A is using a cacheable mapping, which is
the case regardless of what process B does.
Thanks,
Mark.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-27 17:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20200326163625.30714-1-li.wang@windriver.com>
2020-03-26 16:55 ` [PATCH] arm64: mmu: no write cache for O_SYNC flag Catalin Marinas
2020-03-27 14:29 ` Mark Rutland
[not found] ` <6fc201bf-ad0c-3dae-783e-c9c9e4ac034e@windriver.com>
2020-03-27 17:02 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
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=20200327170248.GC94838@C02TD0UTHF1T.local \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=li.wang@windriver.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).