[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200511075115.GA16134@willie-the-truck>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 08:51:15 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, james.morse@....com,
catalin.marinas@....com
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>, Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-c6x-dev@...ux-c6x.org, linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, openrisc@...ts.librecores.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/31] arm64: fix the flush_icache_range arguments in
machine_kexec
[+James and Catalin]
On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 09:54:41AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> The second argument is the end "pointer", not the length.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec.c
> index 8e9c924423b4e..a0b144cfaea71 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec.c
> @@ -177,6 +177,7 @@ void machine_kexec(struct kimage *kimage)
> * the offline CPUs. Therefore, we must use the __* variant here.
> */
> __flush_icache_range((uintptr_t)reboot_code_buffer,
> + (uintptr_t)reboot_code_buffer +
> arm64_relocate_new_kernel_size);
Urgh, well spotted. It's annoyingly different from __flush_dcache_area().
But now I'm wondering what this code actually does... the loop condition
in invalidate_icache_by_line works with 64-bit arithmetic, so we could
spend a /very/ long time here afaict. It's also a bit annoying that we
do a bunch of redundant D-cache maintenance too.
Should we use invalidate_icache_range() here instead? (and why does that
thing need to toggle uaccess)? Argh, too many questions!
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists