From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:56:38 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v4 2/7] arm64: introduce interfaces to hotpatch kernel
 and module code
In-Reply-To: <1382023441.19506.66.camel@linaro1.home>
References: <1381990781-27814-1-git-send-email-liuj97@gmail.com>
 <1381990781-27814-3-git-send-email-liuj97@gmail.com>
 <20131017113826.GJ18765@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
 <1382023441.19506.66.camel@linaro1.home>
Message-ID: <20131018085638.GA2858@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Tixy,

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 04:24:01PM +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-10-17 at 12:38 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 07:19:35AM +0100, Jiang Liu wrote:
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Execute __aarch64_insn_patch_text() on every online CPU,
> > > +	 * which ensure serialization among all online CPUs.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	return stop_machine(aarch64_insn_patch_text_cb, &patch, NULL);
> > > +}
> > 
> > Whoa, whoa, whoa! The comment here is wrong -- we only run the patching on
> > *one* CPU, which is the right thing to do. However, the arch/arm/ call to
> > stop_machine in kprobes does actually run the patching code on *all* the
> > online cores (including the cache flushing!). I think this is to work around
> > cores without hardware cache maintenance broadcasting, but that could easily
> > be called out specially (like we do in patch.c) and the flushing could be
> > separated from the patching too.
> [...]
> 
> For code modifications done in 32bit ARM kprobes (and ftrace) I'm not
> sure we ever actually resolved the possible cache flushing issues. If
> there was specific reasons for flushing on all cores I can't remember
> them, sorry. I have a suspicion that doing so was a case of sticking
> with what the code was already doing, and flushing on all cores seemed
> safest to guard against problems we hadn't thought about.

[...]

> Sorry, I don't think I've added much light on things here have I?

I think you missed the bit I was confused about :) Flushing the cache on
each core is necessary if cache_ops_need_broadcast, so I can understand why
you'd have code to do that. The bit I don't understand is that you actually
patch the instruction on each core too!

Will