[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6fc201bf-ad0c-3dae-783e-c9c9e4ac034e@windriver.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 00:47:32 +0800
From: "Wang, Li" <li.wang@...driver.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: mmu: no write cache for O_SYNC flag
在 2020/3/27 22:29, Mark Rutland 写道:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 09:36:25AM -0700, Li Wang wrote:
>> reproduce steps:
>> 1.
>> disable CONFIG_STRICT_DEVMEM in linux kernel
>> 2.
>> Process A gets a Physical Address of global variable by
>> "/proc/self/pagemap".
>> 3.
>> Process B writes a value to the same Physical Address by mmap():
>> fd=open("/dev/mem",O_SYNC);
>> Virtual Address=mmap(fd);
> Is this just to demonstrate the behaviour, or is this meant to be
> indicative of a real use-case? I'm struggling to see the latter.
>
>> problem symptom:
>> after Process B write a value to the Physical Address,
>> Process A of the value of global variable does not change.
>> They both W/R the same Physical Address.
> If Process A is not using the same attributes as process B, there is no
> guarantee of coherency. How did process A map this memory?
about 2 Process:
Process A:
the memory is not declared by map function, it is just a global variable.
only by /proc/self/pagemap to get its Physical Address.
I attached the codes(wrl-cache-coh-test.c)
Process B:
it is command of "devmem" in busybox, it writes a value to Physical Address.
it uses open(O_SYNC) and mmap.
>> technical reason:
>> Process B writing the Physical Address is by the Virtual Address,
>> and the Virtual Address comes from "/dev/mem" and mmap().
>> In arm64 arch, the Virtual Address has write cache.
>> So, maybe the value is not written into Physical Address.
> I don't think that's true. I think what's happening here is:
>
> * Process A has a Normal WBWA Cacheable mapping.
> * Process B as a Normal Non-cacheable mapping.
> * Process B's write does not snoop any caches, and goes straight to
> memory.
> * Process A reads a value from cache, which does not include process B's
> write.
>
> That's a natural result of using mismatched attributes, and is
> consistent with the O_SYNC flag meaning that the write "is transferred
> to the underlying hardware".
if you agree that O_SYNC flag means "is transferred to the underlying
hardware",
the arm64 does not do that:
when use O_SYNC flag under arm64 arch, it adds write cache feature,
so, it is no guarantee "transferred to hardware".
=====
arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
phys_mem_access_prot(){
else if (file->f_flags & O_SYNC)
return pgprot_writecombine(vma_prot);}
=====
by my test without the write cache, even if Process A is not using the
same attributes as process B,
it has guarantee of coherency:
when Process B change value, Process B can see the change, too.
Thanks,
LiWang.
my email server seems to reject to send to
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
the info is in another email not showing in
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org:
1.
no pass O_SYNC in user space is not a good idea.
in fact, the codes come from 'devmem' command of busybox:
=====
busybox-1.24.1/miscutils$ vim devmem.c
fd = xopen("/dev/mem", O_SYNC);
=====
the codes are used for a long time.
2.
according to info of open man about "O_SYNC":
=====
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/open.2.html
the output data and associated file metadata have been transferred to
the underlying hardware
=====
I think "O_SYNC" means no cache.
3.
/dev/mem of driver offers 2 ways to operate physical memory.
one is mmap, the other is read/write.
when use read/write way, it operates uncached memory:
=====
kernel-source/drivers/char/mem.c
write_mem(){
/* it must also be accessed uncached */
}
=====
4.
arm64 arch is different with other arch about phys_mem_access_prot().
you can see no any other arch add cache flag in the function.
only arm and arm64 add write cache for O_SYNC flag.
x86/mm/pat.c
phys_mem_access_prot(){
return vma_prot;
}
powerpc/mm/mem.c
phys_mem_access_prot(){
if (ppc_md.phys_mem_access_prot)
return ppc_md.phys_mem_access_prot(file, pfn, size,
vma_prot);
if (!page_is_ram(pfn))
vma_prot = pgprot_noncached(vma_prot);
return vma_prot;
}
drivers/char/mem.c
phys_mem_access_prot()
{
#ifdef pgprot_noncached
phys_addr_t offset = pfn << PAGE_SHIFT;
if (uncached_access(file, offset))
return pgprot_noncached(vma_prot);
#endif
return vma_prot;
}
>> fix reason:
>> giving write cache flag in arm64 is in phys_mem_access_prot():
>> =====
>> arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
>> phys_mem_access_prot()
>> {
>> if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
>> return pgprot_noncached(vma_prot);
>> else if (file->f_flags & O_SYNC)
>> return pgprot_writecombine(vma_prot);
>> return vma_prot;
>> }
>> ====
>> the other arch and the share function drivers/char/mem.c of phys_mem_access_prot()
>> does not add write cache flag.
>> So, removing the flag to fix the issue
> This will change behaviour that other software may be relying upon, and
> as above I do not believe this actually solves the problem you describe.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Li Wang <li.wang@...driver.com>
>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
>> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 2 --
>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
>> index 128f70852bf3..d7083965ca17 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
>> @@ -81,8 +81,6 @@ pgprot_t phys_mem_access_prot(struct file *file, unsigned long pfn,
>> {
>> if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
>> return pgprot_noncached(vma_prot);
>> - else if (file->f_flags & O_SYNC)
>> - return pgprot_writecombine(vma_prot);
>> return vma_prot;
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(phys_mem_access_prot);
>> --
>> 2.24.1
>>
View attachment "cache-test.c" of type "text/plain" (1194 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists