Re: [RFC PATCH] Update the cachetlb.txt file WRT flush_dcache_page and update_mmu_cache

[Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>]

On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 12:31 +0100, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Mon, 10 May 2010 11:16:47 +0100
> Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> 
> > > I don't think that just replacing sparc64 with IA64 helps much here
> > > since we still have the problem that the whole cache handling
> > > (architectures, subsystems, file systems) is inconsistent. I think
> > > that we need to agree on it first.
> >
> > Yes, this need to be agreed and hopefully this thread is a starting
> > point for such discussion.
> 
> Hopefully, but I'm not sure what we need to agree is clear enough.
> 
> If we invert the meaning of PG_arch_1 (from PG_dcache_dirty to
> PG_dcache_clean) like the way IA64 and POWERPC to use the bit to solve
> I/D coherency, we can avoid calling flush_dcache_page() at low level
> drivers or their subsystems (ide_* macros, libata,
> bio_flush_dcache_pages, rq_flush_dcache_pages, etc). Architectures
> that need to handle D aliasing and I/D coherence need two bits
> respectively (needs another PG_arch_2 bit) to do flushes effectively.

The two bits idea was mentioned in the previous threads on cache
coherency.

So we basically have two main options (IMHO):

1) leave things as they currently are with PG_arch_1 meaning "dirty" and
change all low level (PIO) drivers call flush_dcache_page() when they
dirty the D-cache.

2) changing the meaning of PG_arch_1 to "clean" and maybe introduce
PG_arch_2 as an optimisation but don't force the low level drivers to
call flush_dcache_page().

The current cachetlb.txt recommends (1) but not all low-level (PIO)
drivers call flush_dcache_page(), hence I/D cache coherency issues at
least on ARM.

Should we go for (2) as a general recommendation across all
architectures that require I/D cache maintenance? Or stick with (1) and
modify the low level drivers to call flush_dcache_page (or a PIO API
similar to kmap that was already proposed on linux-arch)?

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin