[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZhZynGm6YcIdXVWV@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:06:04 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Donald Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
Eric Chanudet <echanude@...hat.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Itaru Kitayama <itaru.kitayama@...itsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64: mm: Batch dsb and isb when populating
pgtables
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 11:25:10AM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 10/04/2024 11:06, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 03:33:06PM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote:
[> >> @@ -234,6 +238,13 @@ static void alloc_init_cont_pte(pmd_t *pmdp, unsigned long addr,
> >> } while (addr = next, addr != end);
> >>
> >> pte_clear_fixmap();
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * Ensure all previous pgtable writes are visible to the table walker.
> >> + * See init_pte().
> >> + */
> >> + dsb(ishst);
> >> + isb();
> >
> > Hmm... currently the call to pte_clear_fixmap() alone should be sufficient,
> > since that needs to update the PTE for the fixmap slot, then do maintenance for
> > that.
>
> Yes, true...
>
> >
> > So we could avoid the addition of the dsb+isb here, and have a comment:
> >
> > /*
> > * Note: barriers and maintenance necessary to clear the fixmap slot
> > * ensure that all previous pgtable writes are visible to the table
> > * walker.
> > */
> > pte_clear_fixmap();
> >
> > ... which'd be fine as long as we keep this fixmap clearing rather than trying
> > to do that lazily as in patch 4.
>
> But it isn't patch 4 that breaks it, it's patch 3. Once we have abstracted
> pte_clear_fixmap() into the ops->unmap() call, for the "late" ops, unmap is a
> noop.
Ah, yep; I hadn't spotted that yet.
> I guess the best solution there would be to require that unmap() always
> issues these barriers.
>
> I'll do as you suggest for this patch. If we want to keep patch 3, then I'll add
> the barriers for all unmap() impls.
Thanks. It's going to take me a bit longer to chew through patches 3 and 4, but
I will try to get through those soon.
For now a slightly simpler option would be to have patch 3 introduce the
DSB+ISB as above rather than in each of the unmap() impls.
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists