On 15.08.2012, at 20:56, Scott Wood wrote: > On 08/15/2012 01:51 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> On 15.08.2012, at 20:33, Scott Wood wrote: >> >>> On 08/15/2012 01:29 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>> >>>> On 15.08.2012, at 20:27, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 15.08.2012, at 20:16, Scott Wood wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 08/15/2012 01:01 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 15.08.2012, at 19:47, Scott Wood wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 08/15/2012 12:27 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 15.08.2012, at 19:26, Scott Wood wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 08/15/2012 04:52 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 15.08.2012, at 03:23, Scott Wood wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 08/14/2012 06:04 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> When we map a page that wasn't icache cleared before, do so when first >>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping it in KVM using the same information bits as the Linux mapping >>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. That way we are 100% sure that any page we map does not have stale >>>>>>>>>>>>> entries in the icache. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We're not really 100% sure of that -- this only handles the case where >>>>>>>>>>>> the kernel does the dirtying, not when it's done by QEMU or the guest. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When the guest does it, the guest is responsible for clearing the >>>>>>>>>>> icache. Same for QEMU. It needs to clear it when doing DMA. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sure. I was just worried that that commit message could be taken the >>>>>>>>>> wrong way, as in "we no longer need the QEMU icache flushing patch". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> However, what is still broken would be a direct /dev/mem map. There >>>>>>>>>>> QEMU should probably clear the icache before starting the guest, in >>>>>>>>>>> case another guest was running on that same memory before. >>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately, we don't have that mode available in upstream QEMU :). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How is QEMU loading images different if it's /dev/mem versus ordinary >>>>>>>>>> anonymous memory? You probably won't have stale icache data in the >>>>>>>>>> latter case (which makes it less likely to be a problem in pratice), but >>>>>>>>>> in theory you could have data that still hasn't left the dcache. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's the same. I just talked to Ben about this today in a different context and we should be safe :). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Safe how? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If it's truly the same, we're definitely not safe, since I had problems >>>>>>>> with this using /dev/mem (particularly when changing the kernel image >>>>>>>> without a host reboot) before I put in the icache flush patch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> QEMU needs to icache flush everything it puts into guest memory. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. I thought you meant we should be safe as things are now. >>>>> >>>>> Hrm. What happened to your patch that flushes the icache on cpu_physical_memory_rw? >>> >>> IIRC Ben wanted it conditionalized to not slow things down on >>> icache-coherent systems, and I never got around to respinning it. >> >> No, he was saying that DMA doesn't flush the icache: >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/119022/focus=119086 > > I recall someone asking for it to be made conditional, but I don't have > time to look it up right now -- I want to try to get some U-Boot stuff > done before the end of the merge window tomorrow. Sure :) > >>>> Ah, if I read Ben's comment correctly we only need it for rom loads, not always for cpu_physical_memory_rw. >>> >>> Why? >> >> Because guest Linux apparently assumes that DMA'd memory needs to be icache flushed. > > What about breakpoints and other debug modifications? The breakpoint code is arch specific. We can just put an icache flush in there. > And it's possible (if not necessarily likely) that other guests are > different. Does fsl hardware guarantee icache coherency from device DMA? Alex -- 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
