From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm: add cache support for arm64
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 15:34:57 +0100
Message-ID: <20190806143457.GF475@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20190805211451.20176-1-robdclark@gmail.com>
 <20190806084821.GA17129@lst.de>
 <CAJs_Fx6eh1w7c=crMoD5XyEOMzP6orLhqUewErE51cPGYmObBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJs_Fx6eh1w7c=crMoD5XyEOMzP6orLhqUewErE51cPGYmObBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Rob Clark <robdclark@chromium.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>, dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>, Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>, Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org

On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 07:11:41AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:48 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> >
> > This goes in the wrong direction.  drm_cflush_* are a bad API we need to
> > get rid of, not add use of it.  The reason for that is two-fold:
> >
> >  a) it doesn't address how cache maintaince actually works in most
> >     platforms.  When talking about a cache we three fundamental operations:
> >
> >         1) write back - this writes the content of the cache back to the
> >            backing memory
> >         2) invalidate - this remove the content of the cache
> >         3) write back + invalidate - do both of the above
> 
> Agreed that drm_cflush_* isn't a great API.  In this particular case
> (IIUC), I need wb+inv so that there aren't dirty cache lines that drop
> out to memory later, and so that I don't get a cache hit on
> uncached/wc mmap'ing.

Is there a cacheable alias lying around (e.g. the linear map), or are
these addresses only mapped uncached/wc?

If there's a cacheable alias, performing an invalidate isn't sufficient,
since a CPU can allocate a new (clean) entry at any point in time (e.g.
as a result of prefetching or arbitrary speculation).

Thanks,
Mark.