Hi Marc,
On 3/8/21 8:03 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2021 16:53:09 +0000,
> Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> It's not clear to me why this patch is needed. If one VCPU in the VM is generating
>> code, is it not the software running in the VM responsible for keeping track of
>> the MMU state of the other VCPUs and making sure the new code is executed
>> correctly? Why should KVM get involved?
>>
>> I don't see how this is different than running on bare metal (no
>> hypervisor), and one CPU with the MMU on generates code that another
>> CPU with the MMU off must execute.
> The difference is that so far, we have always considered i-caches to
> be private to each CPU. With a hypervisor that allows migration of
> vcpus from one physical CPU to another, the i-cache isn't private
> anymore from the perspective of the vcpus.
I think I understand what the problem is. VCPU X running on CPU A with MMU off
fetches instructions from PoC and allocates them into the icache. VCPU Y running
on CPU B generates code and does dcache clean to PoU + icache invalidate, gets
scheduled on CPU A and executes the stale instructions fetched by VCPU X from PoC.
>
>> Some comments below.
>>
>> On 3/6/21 2:15 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 06, 2021 at 10:54:47AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2021 19:07:09 +0000,
>>>> Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 04:45:05PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>>> It recently became apparent that the ARMv8 architecture has interesting
>>>>>> rules regarding attributes being used when fetching instructions
>>>>>> if the MMU is off at Stage-1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this situation, the CPU is allowed to fetch from the PoC and
>>>>>> allocate into the I-cache (unless the memory is mapped with
>>>>>> the XN attribute at Stage-2).
>>>>> Digging through the ARM ARM is hard. Do we have this behaviour with FWB
>>>>> as well?
>>>> The ARM ARM doesn't seem to mention FWB at all when it comes to
>>>> instruction fetch, which is sort of expected as it only covers the
>>>> D-side. I *think* we could sidestep this when CTR_EL0.DIC is set
>>>> though, as the I-side would then snoop the D-side.
>>> Not sure this helps. CTR_EL0.DIC refers to the need for maintenance to
>>> PoU while the SCTLR_EL1.M == 0 causes the I-cache to fetch from PoC. I
>>> don't think I-cache snooping the D-cache would happen to the PoU when
>>> the S1 MMU is off.
>> FEAT_FWB requires that CLIDR_EL1.{LoUIS, LoUU} = {0, 0} which means
>> that no dcache clean is required for instruction to data coherence
>> (page D13-3086). I interpret that as saying that with FEAT_FWB,
>> CTR_EL0.IDC is effectively 1, which means that dcache clean is not
>> required for instruction generation, and icache invalidation is
>> required only if CTR_EL0.DIC = 0 (according to B2-158).
>>
>>> My reading of D4.4.4 is that when SCTLR_EL1.M == 0 both I and D accesses
>>> are Normal Non-cacheable with a note in D4.4.6 that Non-cacheable
>>> accesses may be held in the I-cache.
>> Nitpicking, but SCTLR_EL1.M == 0 and SCTLR_EL1.I == 1 means that
>> instruction fetches are to Normal Cacheable, Inner and Outer
>> Read-Allocate memory (ARM DDI 0487G.a, pages D5-2709 and indirectly
>> at D13-3586).
> I think that's the allocation in unified caches, and not necessarily
> the i-cache, given that it also mention things such as "Inner
> Write-Through", which makes no sense for the i-cache.
>> Like you've pointed out, as mentioned in D4.4.6, it is always
>> possible that instruction fetches are held in the instruction cache,
>> regardless of the state of the SCTLR_EL1.M bit.
> Exactly, and that's what breaks things.
>
>>> The FWB rules on combining S1 and S2 says that Normal Non-cacheable at
>>> S1 is "upgraded" to cacheable. This should happen irrespective of
>>> whether the S1 MMU is on or off and should apply to both I and D
>>> accesses (since it does not explicitly says). So I think we could skip
>>> this IC IALLU when FWB is present.
>>>
>>> The same logic should apply when the VMM copies the VM text. With FWB,
>>> we probably only need D-cache maintenance to PoU and only if
>>> CTR_EL0.IDC==0. I haven't checked what the code currently does.
>> When FEAT_FWB, CTR_EL0.IDC is effectively 1 (see above), so we don't
>> need a dcache clean in this case.
> But that isn't what concerns me. FWB is exclusively documented in
> terms of d-cache, and doesn't describe how that affects the
> instruction fetch (which is why I'm reluctant to attribute any effect
> to it).
I tend to agree with this. FEAT_S2FWB is described in terms of resultant memory
type, cacheability attribute and cacheability hints, which in the architecture
don't affect the need to do instruction cache invalidation or data cache clean
when generating instructions.
There's also this part which is specifically targeted at instruction generation
(page D5-2761):
"When FEAT_S2FWB is implemented, the architecture requires that CLIDR_EL1.{LOUU,
LOIUS} are zero so that no levels of data cache need to be cleaned in order to
manage coherency with instruction fetches."
There's no mention of not needing to do instruction invalidation. I think the
invalidation is still necessary with FWB when CTR_EL0.DIC == 0b0.
Thanks,
Alex
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
