[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YvyekFhBWQ6qlAP6@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2022 09:53:52 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev,
bwidawsk@...nel.org, ira.weiny@...el.com, vishal.l.verma@...el.com,
alison.schofield@...el.com, a.manzanares@...sung.com,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/cacheflush: Introduce flush_all_caches()
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 11:49:59AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> What would have helped is if the secure-erase and unlock definition in
> the specification mandated that the device emit cache invalidations for
> everything it has mapped when it is erased. However, that has some
> holes, and it also makes me think there is a gap in the current region
> provisioning code. If I have device-A mapped at physical-address-X and then
> tear that down and instantiate device-B at that same physical address
> there needs to be CPU cache invalidation between those 2 events.
Can we pretty please get those holes fixed ASAP such that future
generations can avoid the WBINVD nonsense?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists