2015-09-22 14:27 GMT+09:00 Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Hi Russell,
>
>
> 2015-09-22 4:38 GMT+09:00 Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 01:37:32PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>>> +/**
>>> + * __uniphier_cache_maint_common - run a queue operation for a particular level
>>> + *
>>> + * @data: cache controller specific data
>>> + * @start: start address of range operation (don't care for "all" operation)
>>> + * @size: data size of range operation (don't care for "all" operation)
>>> + * @operation: flags to specify the desired cache operation
>>> + */
>>> +static void __uniphier_cache_maint_common(struct uniphier_cache_data *data,
>>> + unsigned long start,
>>> + unsigned long size,
>>> + u32 operation)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * The IRQ must be disable during this sequence because the accessor
>>> + * holds the access right of the operation queue registers. The IRQ
>>> + * should be restored after releasing the register access right.
>>> + */
>>> + local_irq_save(flags);
>>> +
>>> + /* clear the complete notification flag */
>>> + writel_relaxed(UNIPHIER_SSCOLPQS_EF, data->op_base + UNIPHIER_SSCOLPQS);
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * We do not need a spin lock here because the hardware guarantees
>>> + * this sequence is atomic, i.e. the write access is arbitrated
>>> + * and only the winner's write accesses take effect.
>>> + * After register settings, we need to check the UNIPHIER_SSCOPPQSEF to
>>> + * see if we won the arbitration or not.
>>> + * If the command was not successfully set, just try again.
>>> + */
>>> + do {
>>> + /* set cache operation */
>>> + writel_relaxed(UNIPHIER_SSCOQM_CE | operation,
>>> + data->op_base + UNIPHIER_SSCOQM);
>>> +
>>> + /* set address range if needed */
>>> + if (likely(UNIPHIER_SSCOQM_S_IS_RANGE(operation))) {
>>> + writel_relaxed(start, data->op_base + UNIPHIER_SSCOQAD);
>>> + writel_relaxed(size, data->op_base + UNIPHIER_SSCOQSZ);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /* set target ways if needed */
>>> + if (unlikely(UNIPHIER_SSCOQM_TID_IS_WAY(operation)))
>>> + writel_relaxed(data->way_locked_mask,
>>> + data->op_base + UNIPHIER_SSCOQWN);
>>> + } while (unlikely(readl_relaxed(data->op_base + UNIPHIER_SSCOPPQSEF) &
>>> + (UNIPHIER_SSCOPPQSEF_FE | UNIPHIER_SSCOPPQSEF_OE)));
>>> +
>>> + /* wait until the operation is completed */
>>> + while (likely(readl_relaxed(data->op_base + UNIPHIER_SSCOLPQS) !=
>>> + UNIPHIER_SSCOLPQS_EF))
>>> + cpu_relax();
>>> +
>>> + local_irq_restore(flags);
>>
>> I'm concerned about this. We've had caches like this (ARM L220) which
>> require only one operation to be performed at a time. In a SMP system,
>> that requires a spinlock to prevent one CPU triggering a L2 maintanence
>> operation while another CPU tries to operate on the L2 cache.
>>
>> From the overall series diffstat, I see that you are adding SMP support
>> too. So I have to ask the obvious question: if you need to disable
>> local IRQs around the L2 cache operations, what happens if two CPUs
>> both try to perform a L2 cache operation concurrently?
>
>
> This cache controller is able to accept operations from multiple CPUs
> at the same time.
>
> Let's assume the following scenario:
>
> CPU0 issues some operation.
> Before the cache controller finishes the operation,
> CPU1 issues another operation; this is OK.
> The operation is stored in the queue of the cache controller
> until the operation under way is completed.
> When the operation from CPU0 is finished, the controller starts
> the operation from CPU1.
>
> If the queue is full (this unlikely happens though),
> the CPU can know by checking UNIPHIER_SSCOPPQSEF register.
> This is checked by the code:
>
> unlikely(readl_relaxed(data->op_base + UNIPHIER_SSCOPPQSEF) &
> (UNIPHIER_SSCOPPQSEF_FE | UNIPHIER_SSCOPPQSEF_OE))
>
>
> The status register (UNIPHIER_SSCOLPQS) has each instance for each CPU.
> That means, CPU0 can know if the operation issued by itself is finished or not.
> Likewise for CPU1, CPU2, ...
>
> To sum up, the cache controller can nicely handles cache operations in SMP.
>
OK, I will send v4 with more detailed comments
to explain why this outer cache controller works nicely in an SMP system
without a spin lock.
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
