On Wed, Mar 29, 2023, at 22:48, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 02:13:04PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>> No other architecture intentionally writes back dirty cache lines into
>> a buffer that a device has just finished writing into. If the cache is
>> clean, this has no effect at all, but
>
>> if a cacheline in the buffer has
>> actually been written by the CPU, there is a drive bug that is likely
>> made worse by overwriting that buffer.
>
> So does this need a
> Fixes: 1631ba1259d6 ("riscv: Add support for non-coherent devices using
> zicbom extension")
> then, even if the cacheline really should not have been touched by the
> CPU?
> Also, minor typo, s/drive/driver/.
done
> In the thread we had that sparked this, I went digging for the source of
> the flushes, and it came from a review comment:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/342e3c12-ebb0-badf-7d4c-c444a2b842b2@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
Ah, so the comment that led to it was
"For arch_sync_dma_for_cpu(DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL), we expect the CPU to have
written to the buffer, so this should flush, not invalidate."
which sounds like Samuel just misunderstood what "bidirectional"
means: the comment implies that both the cpu and the device access
the buffer before arch_sync_dma_for_cpu(DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL), but
this is not allowed. Instead, the point is that the device may both
read and write the buffer, requiring that we must do a writeback
at arch_sync_dma_for_device(DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL) and an invalidate
at arch_sync_dma_for_cpu(DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL).
The comment about arch_sync_dma_for_device(DMA_FROM_DEVICE) (in the
same email) seems equally confused. It's of course easy to
misunderstand these, and many others have gotten confused in
similar ways before.
> But *surely* if no other arch needs to do that, then we are safe to also
> not do it... Your logic seems right by me at least, especially given the
> lack of flushes elsewhere.
Right, I remove the extra writeback from powerpc, parisc and microblaze
for the same reason. Those appear to only be there because they used the
same function for _for_device() as for _for_cpu(), not because someone
thought they were required.
> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks!
Arnd
