From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:07:37 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] ARM: tlb: don't perform inner-shareable invalidation
 for local TLB ops
In-Reply-To: <20130327103429.GB801@MacBook-Pro.local>
References: <1364235581-17900-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>
 <1364235581-17900-2-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>
 <20130327103429.GB801@MacBook-Pro.local>
Message-ID: <20130327120737.GB17185@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Catalin,

Cheers for looking at this.

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:34:30AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 06:19:38PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > @@ -352,22 +369,33 @@ static inline void local_flush_tlb_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> >  		dsb();
> >  
> >  	if (possible_tlb_flags & (TLB_V3_FULL|TLB_V4_U_FULL|TLB_V4_D_FULL|TLB_V4_I_FULL)) {
> > -		if (cpumask_test_cpu(get_cpu(), mm_cpumask(mm))) {
> > +		if (!cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), mm_cpumask(mm))) {
> >  			tlb_op(TLB_V3_FULL, "c6, c0, 0", zero);
> >  			tlb_op(TLB_V4_U_FULL, "c8, c7, 0", zero);
> >  			tlb_op(TLB_V4_D_FULL, "c8, c6, 0", zero);
> >  			tlb_op(TLB_V4_I_FULL, "c8, c5, 0", zero);
> >  		}
> > -		put_cpu();
> 
> Why is this change needed? You only flush the local TLB if the mm never
> wasn't active on this processor?

Ouch, that's a cock-up, sorry. I'll remove the '!'.

> > @@ -398,6 +426,21 @@ local_flush_tlb_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long uaddr)
> >  	tlb_op(TLB_V6_U_PAGE, "c8, c7, 1", uaddr);
> >  	tlb_op(TLB_V6_D_PAGE, "c8, c6, 1", uaddr);
> >  	tlb_op(TLB_V6_I_PAGE, "c8, c5, 1", uaddr);
> > +
> > +	if (tlb_flag(TLB_BARRIER))
> > +		dsb();
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void
> > +__flush_tlb_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long uaddr)
> > +{
> > +	const unsigned int __tlb_flag = __cpu_tlb_flags;
> > +
> > +	uaddr = (uaddr & PAGE_MASK) | ASID(vma->vm_mm);
> > +
> > +	if (tlb_flag(TLB_WB))
> > +		dsb();
> > +
> 
> I guess here we could just have a single *_tlb_page() variant. I
> couldn't find any place where we call the local_flush_tlb_page()
> explicitly, I guess we don't really need local semantics. On ARMv6 SMP,
> they are local anyway.
> 
> If we have a single *_tlb_page() function, you would need to drop the
> TLB_V6_*_PAGE from the v8 possible TLB ops.

Having the local variant doesn't hurt though, and provides the same symmetry
as other architectures (powerpc, sh, tile, mips, ...).

> >  #ifdef CONFIG_ARM_ERRATA_720789
> >  	tlb_op(TLB_V7_UIS_PAGE, "c8, c3, 3", uaddr & PAGE_MASK);
> >  #else
> > @@ -428,6 +471,22 @@ static inline void local_flush_tlb_kernel_page(unsigned long kaddr)
> >  	tlb_op(TLB_V6_U_PAGE, "c8, c7, 1", kaddr);
> >  	tlb_op(TLB_V6_D_PAGE, "c8, c6, 1", kaddr);
> >  	tlb_op(TLB_V6_I_PAGE, "c8, c5, 1", kaddr);
> > +
> > +	if (tlb_flag(TLB_BARRIER)) {
> > +		dsb();
> > +		isb();
> > +	}
> > +}
> 
> I have some worries with this function. It is used by set_top_pte() and
> it really doesn't look like it has local-only semantics. For example,
> you use it do flush the I-cache aliases and this must target all the
> CPUs because of speculative prefetches, which means that set_top_pte()
> must set the new alias on all the CPUs.

This looks like a bug in set_top_pte when it's called for cache-flushing.
However, the only core this would affect is 11MPCore, which uses the
ipi-based flushing anyway, so I think we're ok.

> Highmem mappings need to be revisited as well.

I think they're ok. Everything is either done in atomic context or under a
raw spinlock, so the mappings aren't expected to be used by other CPUs.

Cheers,

Will