[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEbi=3fvdWMExreVsSu3TJqXUr5Zpt4k_q=cXXB3miJCvY-+1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 17:03:33 +0800
From: Greentime Hu <green.hu@...il.com>
To: Guo Ren <ren_guo@...ky.com>
Cc: Greentime <greentime@...estech.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Vincent Chen <deanbo422@...il.com>,
DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert.uytterhoeven@...il.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Vincent Chen <vincentc@...estech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/33] nds32: Cache and TLB routines
2017-12-13 16:53 GMT+08:00 Guo Ren <ren_guo@...ky.com>:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 04:30:41PM +0800, Greentime Hu wrote:
>> 2017-12-13 16:19 GMT+08:00 Guo Ren <ren_guo@...ky.com>:
>> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 01:45:02PM +0800, Greentime Hu wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think it should be fine if an interruption between mtsr_dsb and
>> >> tlbop_rwr because this is a optimization by sw.
>> >
>> > Fine? When there is an unexpected vaddr in SR_TLB_VPN, tlbop_rwr(*pte) will
>> > break that vaddr's pfn in the CPU tlb-buffer entry. When linux access the
>> > vaddr, it will get wrong data unless the entry has been replaced out.
>>
>> Hi, Guo Ren:
>>
>> Thanks. I get your point.
>> It is needed to be protected.
>> I will fix it in the next version patch.
>>
>> if (vma->vm_mm == current->active_mm) {
>> local_irq_save(flags);
>> __nds32__mtsr_dsb(addr, NDS32_SR_TLB_VPN);
>> __nds32__tlbop_rwr(*pte);
>> __nds32__isb();
>> local_irq_restore(flags);
>> }
>
> If hardware tlbop_rwr could invalid NDS32_SR_TLB_VPN, then you needn't
> protect.
> I mean:
> mtsr addr1 NDS32_SR_TLB_VPN
> mtsr addr2 NDS32_SR_TLB_VPN
> tlbop_rwr(*pte) // OK, and it will hit a hardware invalid bit internal.
> tlbop_rwr(*pte) // SR_TLB_VPN invalided, then it will not cause problem.
>
> :) How my idea?
Hi, Guo Ren:
The reason I think it might have problem is that
mtsr addr1 NDS32_SR_TLB_VPN
interrupt coming
mtsr addr2 NDS32_SR_TLB_VPN <- TLB_VPN has been set to addr2
tlbop_rwr(*pte);
interrupt finish
tlbop_rwr(*pte); <- it will use the wrong TLB_VPN
I think all these TLB operations should be protected because tlbop
will operate with TLB_VPN.
Thanks :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists