[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <640f8606-2757-4e82-721f-9625d48ded65@gentwo.org>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 11:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Christoph Lameter (Ampere)" <cl@...two.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
cc: Yang Shi <yang@...amperecomputing.com>, will@...nel.org,
anshuman.khandual@....com, scott@...amperecomputing.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] arm64: mm: force write fault for atomic RMW
instructions
On Thu, 23 May 2024, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 09:56:36AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h
>> index db1aeacd4cd9..1cc73664fc55 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/insn.h
>> @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ static __always_inline u32 aarch64_insn_get_##abbr##_value(void) \
>> * "-" means "don't care"
>> */
>> __AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(class_branch_sys, 0x1c000000, 0x14000000)
>> +__AARCH64_INSN_FUNCS(class_atomic, 0x3b200c00, 0x38200000)
>
> While this class includes all atomics that currently require write
> permission, there's some unallocated space in this range and we don't
> know what future architecture versions may introduce. Unfortunately we
> need to check each individual atomic op in this class (not sure what the
> overhead will be).
Can you tell us which bits or pattern is not allocated? Maybe we can
exclude that from the pattern.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists