All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com>
To: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: fix affected memory range by dcache clean functions
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 07:08:45 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170303060845.GI23726@toto> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1488503726-32320-1-git-send-email-sstabellini@kernel.org>

On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 05:15:26PM -0800, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> clean_dcache_va_range and clean_and_invalidate_dcache_va_range don't
> calculate the range correctly when "end" is not cacheline aligned. As a
> result, the last cacheline is not skipped. Fix the issue by aligning the
> start address to the cacheline size.
> 
> In addition, make the code simpler and faster in
> invalidate_dcache_va_range, by removing the module operation and using
> bitmasks instead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
> Reported-by: edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com
> CC: edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com

This looks good to me and it works on my side.
In the future, perhaps we could convert invalidate_dcache_va_range
to use a smaller implementation like clean_dcache_va_range().

Anyway:
Reviewed-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com>
Tested-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com>

And super thanks for helping me resolve this issue!

Cheers,
Edgar


> ---
>  xen/include/asm-arm/page.h | 24 +++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/page.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/page.h
> index 86de0b6..4b46e88 100644
> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/page.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/page.h
> @@ -291,24 +291,20 @@ extern size_t cacheline_bytes;
>  
>  static inline int invalidate_dcache_va_range(const void *p, unsigned long size)
>  {
> -    size_t off;
>      const void *end = p + size;
> +    size_t cacheline_mask = cacheline_bytes - 1;
>  
>      dsb(sy);           /* So the CPU issues all writes to the range */
>  
> -    off = (unsigned long)p % cacheline_bytes;
> -    if ( off )
> +    if ( (uintptr_t)p & cacheline_mask )
>      {
> -        p -= off;
> +        p = (void *)((uintptr_t)p & ~cacheline_mask);
>          asm volatile (__clean_and_invalidate_dcache_one(0) : : "r" (p));
>          p += cacheline_bytes;
> -        size -= cacheline_bytes - off;
>      }
> -    off = (unsigned long)end % cacheline_bytes;
> -    if ( off )
> +    if ( (uintptr_t)end & cacheline_mask )
>      {
> -        end -= off;
> -        size -= off;
> +        end = (void *)((uintptr_t)end & ~cacheline_mask);
>          asm volatile (__clean_and_invalidate_dcache_one(0) : : "r" (end));
>      }
>  
> @@ -322,9 +318,10 @@ static inline int invalidate_dcache_va_range(const void *p, unsigned long size)
>  
>  static inline int clean_dcache_va_range(const void *p, unsigned long size)
>  {
> -    const void *end;
> +    const void *end = p + size;
>      dsb(sy);           /* So the CPU issues all writes to the range */
> -    for ( end = p + size; p < end; p += cacheline_bytes )
> +    p = (void *)((uintptr_t)p & ~(cacheline_bytes - 1));
> +    for ( ; p < end; p += cacheline_bytes )
>          asm volatile (__clean_dcache_one(0) : : "r" (p));
>      dsb(sy);           /* So we know the flushes happen before continuing */
>      /* ARM callers assume that dcache_* functions cannot fail. */
> @@ -334,9 +331,10 @@ static inline int clean_dcache_va_range(const void *p, unsigned long size)
>  static inline int clean_and_invalidate_dcache_va_range
>      (const void *p, unsigned long size)
>  {
> -    const void *end;
> +    const void *end = p + size;
>      dsb(sy);         /* So the CPU issues all writes to the range */
> -    for ( end = p + size; p < end; p += cacheline_bytes )
> +    p = (void *)((uintptr_t)p & ~(cacheline_bytes - 1));
> +    for ( ; p < end; p += cacheline_bytes )
>          asm volatile (__clean_and_invalidate_dcache_one(0) : : "r" (p));
>      dsb(sy);         /* So we know the flushes happen before continuing */
>      /* ARM callers assume that dcache_* functions cannot fail. */
> -- 
> 1.9.1
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

  reply	other threads:[~2017-03-03  6:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-03-03  1:15 [PATCH] xen/arm: fix affected memory range by dcache clean functions Stefano Stabellini
2017-03-03  6:08 ` Edgar E. Iglesias [this message]
2017-03-04 17:45 ` Julien Grall

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170303060845.GI23726@toto \
    --to=edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com \
    --cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.