From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Problem with atomic accesses in pstore on some ARM CPUs
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 23:03:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <11973430.JhDduGIT84@wuerfel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160815221518.GD1120@svinekod>
On Monday, August 15, 2016 11:15:18 PM CEST Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 08:02:53AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 6:21 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 06:14:53AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
> > >> > On 16/08/16 00:19, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > >> >> we are having a problem with atomic accesses in pstore on some ARM
> > >> >> CPUs (specifically rk3288 and rk3399). With those chips, atomic
> > >> >> accesses fail with both pgprot_noncached and pgprot_writecombine
> > >> >> memory. Atomic accesses do work when selecting PAGE_KERNEL protection.
> > >> >
> > >> > What's the pstore backed by? I'm guessing it's not normal DRAM.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> it is normal DRAM.
> > >
> > > In which case, why does it need to be mapped with weird attributes?
> > > Is there an alias in the linear map you can use?
> > >
> >
> > I don't really _want_ to do anything besides using pstore as-is, or,
> > in other words, to have the upstream kernel work with the affected
> > systems.
> >
> > The current pstore code runs the following code for memory with
> > pfn_valid() = true.
> >
> > if (memtype)
> > prot = pgprot_noncached(PAGE_KERNEL);
> > else
> > prot = pgprot_writecombine(PAGE_KERNEL);
> > ...
> > vaddr = vmap(pages, page_count, VM_MAP, prot);
> >
> > It then uses the memory pointed to by vaddr for atomic operations.
>
> This means that the generic ramoops / pstore code is making non-portable
> assumptions about memory types.
>
> So _something_ has to happen to that code.
If we have both a cacheable and a noncacheable mapping for the
same DRAM area, things get even worse across many architectures.
IIRC PowerPC will trigger a checkstop if it encounters a valid
cache line for a noncacheable mapping.
If there is only one mapping, this is not a problem, but we probably
want to avoid having a write-back cache here, in case something
serious goes wrong and all the cache is invalidated but the pstore
is used for post-mortem analysis.
Arnd
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-22 21:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-15 23:19 Problem with atomic accesses in pstore on some ARM CPUs Guenter Roeck
2016-08-16 10:32 ` Robin Murphy
2016-08-16 10:45 ` Will Deacon
2016-08-16 13:21 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-08-16 13:14 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-08-16 13:21 ` Will Deacon
2016-08-16 15:02 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-08-15 22:15 ` Mark Rutland
2016-08-16 17:35 ` Colin Cross
2016-08-16 20:26 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-08-16 20:50 ` Kees Cook
2016-08-17 0:26 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-08-18 14:02 ` Tony Lindgren
2016-08-19 9:35 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-08-19 12:47 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-08-22 21:03 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
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=11973430.JhDduGIT84@wuerfel \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox