Hi Will,
On 01/12/2017 11:58 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Christopher,
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 09:41:16AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
>> This refactoring will allow an errata workaround that repeats tlbi dsb
>> sequences to only change one location. This is not intended to change the
>> generated assembly and comparison of before and after preprocessor output
>> of arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c and vmlinux objdump shows no functional changes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington <cov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h | 104 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>> 1 file changed, 69 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
>> index deab523..f28813c 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
>> @@ -25,22 +25,69 @@
>> #include <asm/cputype.h>
>>
>> /*
>> - * Raw TLBI operations.
>> + * Raw TLBI, DSB operations
>> *
>> - * Where necessary, use the __tlbi() macro to avoid asm()
>> - * boilerplate. Drivers and most kernel code should use the TLB
>> - * management routines in preference to the macro below.
>> + * Where necessary, use __tlbi_*dsb() macros to avoid asm() boilerplate.
>> + * Drivers and most kernel code should use the TLB management routines in
>> + * preference to the macros below.
>> *
>> - * The macro can be used as __tlbi(op) or __tlbi(op, arg), depending
>> - * on whether a particular TLBI operation takes an argument or
>> - * not. The macros handles invoking the asm with or without the
>> - * register argument as appropriate.
>> + * The __tlbi_dsb() macro handles invoking the asm without any register
>> + * argument, with a single register argument, and with start (included)
>> + * and end (excluded) range of register arguments. For example:
>> + *
>> + * __tlbi_dsb(op, attr)
>> + *
>> + * tlbi op
>> + * dsb attr
>> + *
>> + * __tlbi_dsb(op, attr, addr)
>> + *
>> + * mov %[addr], =addr
>> + * tlbi op, %[addr]
>> + * dsb attr
>> + *
>> + * __tlbi_range_dsb(op, attr, start, end)
>> + *
>> + * mov %[arg], =start
>> + * mov %[end], =end
>> + * for:
>> + * tlbi op, %[addr]
>> + * add %[addr], %[addr], #(1 << (PAGE_SHIFT - 12))
>> + * cmp %[addr], %[end]
>> + * b.ne for
>> + * dsb attr
>> */
>> -#define __TLBI_0(op, arg) asm ("tlbi " #op)
>> -#define __TLBI_1(op, arg) asm ("tlbi " #op ", %0" : : "r" (arg))
>> -#define __TLBI_N(op, arg, n, ...) __TLBI_##n(op, arg)
>>
>> -#define __tlbi(op, ...) __TLBI_N(op, ##__VA_ARGS__, 1, 0)
>> +#define __TLBI_FOR_0(ig0, ig1, ig2)
>> +#define __TLBI_INSTR_0(op, ig1, ig2) "tlbi " #op
>> +#define __TLBI_IO_0(ig0, ig1, ig2) : :
>> +
>> +#define __TLBI_FOR_1(ig0, ig1, ig2)
>> +#define __TLBI_INSTR_1(op, ig0, ig1) "tlbi " #op ", %0"
>> +#define __TLBI_IO_1(ig0, arg, ig1) : : "r" (arg)
>> +
>> +#define __TLBI_FOR_2(ig0, start, ig1) unsigned long addr; \
>> + for (addr = start; addr < end; \
>> + addr += 1 << (PAGE_SHIFT - 12))
>> +#define __TLBI_INSTR_2(op, ig0, ig1) "tlbi " #op ", %0"
>> +#define __TLBI_IO_2(ig0, ig1, ig2) : : "r" (addr)
>> +
>> +#define __TLBI_FOR_N(op, a1, a2, n, ...) __TLBI_FOR_##n(op, a1, a2)
>> +#define __TLBI_INSTR_N(op, a1, a2, n, ...) __TLBI_INSTR_##n(op, a1, a2)
>> +#define __TLBI_IO_N(op, a1, a2, n, ...) __TLBI_IO_##n(op, a1, a2)
>> +
>> +#define __TLBI_FOR(op, ...) __TLBI_FOR_N(op, ##__VA_ARGS__, 2, 1, 0)
>> +#define __TLBI_INSTR(op, ...) __TLBI_INSTR_N(op, ##__VA_ARGS__, 2, 1, 0)
>> +#define __TLBI_IO(op, ...) __TLBI_IO_N(op, ##__VA_ARGS__, 2, 1, 0)
>> +
>> +#define __tlbi_asm_dsb(as, op, attr, ...) do { \
>> + __TLBI_FOR(op, ##__VA_ARGS__) \
>> + asm (__TLBI_INSTR(op, ##__VA_ARGS__) \
>> + __TLBI_IO(op, ##__VA_ARGS__)); \
>> + asm volatile ( as "\ndsb " #attr "\n" \
>> + : : : "memory"); } while (0)
>> +
>> +#define __tlbi_dsb(...) __tlbi_asm_dsb("", ##__VA_ARGS__)
>
> I can't deny that this is cool, but ultimately it's completely unreadable.
> What I was thinking you'd do would be make __tlbi expand to:
>
> tlbi
> dsb
> tlbi
> dsb
>
> for Falkor, and:
>
> tlbi
> nop
> nop
> nop
>
> for everybody else.
Thanks for the suggestion. So would __tlbi take a dsb sharability argument in
your proposal? Or would it be communicated in some other fashion, maybe inferred
from the tlbi argument? Or would the workaround dsbs all be the worst/broadest
case?
> Wouldn't that localise this change sufficiently that you wouldn't need
> to change all the callers and encode the looping in your cpp macros?
>
> I realise you get an extra dsb in some places with that change, but I'd
> like to see numbers for the impact of that on top of the workaround. If
> it's an issue, then an alternative sequence would be:
>
> tlbi
> dsb
> tlbi
>
> and you'd rely on the existing dsb to complete that.
>
> Having said that, I don't understand how your current loop code works
> when the workaround is applied. AFAICT, you end up emitting something
> like:
>
> dsb ishst
> for i in 0 to n
> tlbi va+i
> dsb
> tlbi va+n
> dsb
>
> which looks wrong to me. Am I misreading something here?
You're right, I am off by 1 << (PAGE_SHIFT - 12) here. I would need to
increment, compare, not take the loop branch (regular for loop stuff),
then decrement (missing) and perform TLB invalidation again (present but
using incorrect value).
Thanks,
Cov
--
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code
Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
