Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 1

[Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>]

Hi Bartlomiej,

On 11/09/14 12:01, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 07:11:10 PM Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Hi Russell,
>>
>> On 10/09/14 18:41, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 03:27:51PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oww.. This is double indirection deal there. A percpu offset pointing to
>>>>>> a pointer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Generally the following is true (definition from
>>>>>> include/asm-generic/percpu.h that is used for ARM for raw_cpu_read):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #define raw_cpu_read_4(pcp)             (*raw_cpu_ptr(&(pcp)))
>>>>>
>>>>> I think what the issue is that we dropped the fetch of the percpu offset
>>>>> in the patch. Instead we are using the address of the variable that
>>>>> contains the offset. Does this patch fix it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: irqchip: Properly fetch the per cpu offset
>>>>>
>>>>> The raw_cpu_read() conversion dropped the fetch of the offset
>>>>> from base->percpu_base in gic_get_percpu_base.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Index: linux/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>> --- linux.orig/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>>> +++ linux/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>>> @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ static struct gic_chip_data gic_data[MAX
>>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_GIC_NON_BANKED
>>>>>  static void __iomem *gic_get_percpu_base(union gic_base *base)
>>>>>  {
>>>>> -	return raw_cpu_read(base->percpu_base);
>>>>> +	return raw_cpu_read(*base->percpu_base);
>>>>
>>>> Isn't the pointer dereference supposed to be performed _outside_ the per 
>>>> CPU accessor?
>>>
>>> I think this is correct.
>>>
>>> Let's start from the depths of raw_cpu_read(), where the pointer is
>>> verified to be the correct type:
>>>
>>> #define __verify_pcpu_ptr(ptr)                                          \
>>> do {                                                                    \
>>>         const void __percpu *__vpp_verify = (typeof((ptr) + 0))NULL;    \
>>>         (void)__vpp_verify;                                             \
>>> } while (0)
>>>
>>> So, "ptr" should be of type "const void __percpu *" (note the __percpu
>>> annotation there, which makes it sparse-checkable.)
>>>
>>> The next level up is this:
>>>
>>> #define __pcpu_size_call_return(stem, variable)                         \
>>> ({                                                                      \
>>>         typeof(variable) pscr_ret__;                                    \
>>>         __verify_pcpu_ptr(&(variable));                                 \
>>>
>>> So, we pass the address of the variable to the verification function.
>>> That makes it a void-typed variable - "const void __percpu".
>>>
>>> #define raw_cpu_read(pcp)   __pcpu_size_call_return(raw_cpu_read_, pcp)
>>>
>>> So this also makes "pcp" a "const void __percpu".
>>>
>>> Now, what type is base->percpu_base?
>>>
>>>         void __percpu * __iomem *percpu_base;
>>>
>>> The thing we want to be per-cpu is a "void __iomem *" pointer.  However,
>>> we have a pointer to the per-cpu instance.  That's the "void __percpu *"
>>> bit.
>>>
>>> So, for this to match the requirements for raw_cpu_read(), we need to
>>> do one dereference to end up with "void __percpu".
>>>
>>> Hence, to me, the patch looks correct.
>>>
>>> Whether it works or not is a /completely/ different matter.  As has been
>>> pointed out, the only place this code gets used is on a very small number
>>> of platforms, which I don't have, and that gives me zero way to test it.
>>> If it's Exynos which is affected by this, we need to call on Samsung to
>>> test this patch.
>>>
>>> Now, this code was introduced by Marc Zyngier in order to support Exynos,
>>> probably the result of another patch on the mailing list from Samsung.
>>> (I've added Marc and another Samsung guy to the Cc list.)  Whatever,
>>> *someone* needs to verify this but it needs to be done with the affected
>>> hardware.  Whether Marc can, or whether it has to be someone from Samsung,
>>> I don't care which.
>>
>> Thanks for looping me in. I indeed introduced this as an alternative to
>> an utterly broken patch that was submitted at the time.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, and by reading your analysis, this patch looks
>> perfectly sensible.
>>
>> Now, I have long given up on trying to run *anything* on a Samsung
>> platform other than my Chromebook - the various maintainers don't seem
>> to care at all. I may be able to revive an Origen board though (I think
>> I have one collecting the proverbial dust in a cupboard), assuming I can
>> locate a bootloader for it.
> 
> Well, I'm not a maintainer but I try keep linux-next working on at least:
> 
> Origen (Exynos4210)
> Origen Quad (Exynos4412)
> ODROID U3 (Exynos4412)
> Trats2 (Exynos4412)
> Arndale (Exynos5250)
> 
> If you have problems booting linux-next on any of the above boards please
> let me know.

My first problem is getting mainline u-boot to work on the Origen (the
4210 flavour). I compiled "something", but how you get that to run is a
mystery. If I can get that to work, then I'll try to move on to the
kernel...

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...