[Linaro-acpi] [PATCH 2/2] ACPI / scan: Parse _CCA and setup device coherency

[will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:24:12PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 30 April 2015 12:07:18 Will Deacon wrote:
> > So for the CPU caches we'd do the usual clean to push dirty lines to the device
> > and (clean+)invalidate before reading data from the device. For the "other
> > caches in the system" we currently assume (for ARM64) that cache maintenance
> > will be broadcast and therefore I wouldn't anticipate doing anything extra.
> > 
> > If people want to build system caches that don't respect broadcast cache
> > maintenance and require explicit management (e.g outer_flush), then I
> > consider that a broken system and we should try to disable the cache before
> > entering the kernel. ARMv8 explicitly prohibits this type of cache in the
> > architecture (type 1 below):
> > 
> >   `Conceptually, three classes of system cache can be envisaged:
> > 
> >    1. System caches which lie before the point of coherency and cannot
> >       be managed by any cache maintenance instructions. Such systems
> >       fundamentally undermine the concept of cache maintenance
> >       instructions operating to the point of coherency, as they imply
> >       the use of non-architecture mechanisms to manage coherency. The
> >       use of such systems in the ARM architecture is explicitly
> >       prohibited.
> 
> Hmm, I thought this was what GPUs typically have, with their own
> internal caches that are managed by the GPU rather than the normal
> cache maintenance instructions. Does this prohibit the use of most
> GPU devices with ARMv8, or did I misunderstand what they do?

No, because it's the responsibility of the GPU/GPU driver to ensure
that the internal caches are not visible to the CPU. I guess you can
think of data in the GPU private cache like data sitting in a CPU's write
buffer (i.e. non-snoopable).

> >    2. System caches which lie before the point of coherency and can be
> >       managed by cache maintenance by address instructions that apply to
> >       the point of coherency, but cannot be managed by cache maintenance
> >       by set/way instructions. Where maintenance of the entirety of such
> >       a cache must be performed, as in the case for power management, it
> >       must be performed using non-architectural mechanisms.
> 
> That still doesn't define which cache maintenance instructions are
> required for a device that is marked as not coherent using the _CCA
> property.
> 
> Here, I know that I have a cache that I can flush or invalidate or sync
> using architected instructions, but should I?

Table 15 in the IORT spec show the 8 combinations of CCA/CPM/DACs,
the mapping requirements and whether or not maintenance is required.

The actual maintenance operations aren't described, but they would
correspond with what we currently do in the ARM and arm64 kernels (clean to
device, clean+inv from device).

> In particular, there are two common models that we support in Linux:
> 
> a) embedded ARM32 and others
> 
> dma_alloc_non_coherent() == dma_alloc_coherent() == alloc uncached
> dma_cache_sync() == not supportable
> dma_sync_{single,sg,page}_for_{device,cpu} == {flush, invalidate, ...}
> 
> b) NUMA servers (parisc, itanium) and others
> 
> dma_alloc_noncoherent() == alloc cached

This would lead to mismatched memory attributes on ARM/arm64.

> dma_alloc_coherent() == alloc uncached
> dma_sync_{single,sg,page}_for_{device,cpu} ==  dma_cache_sync() == cache sync

Cache sync doesn't exist in the ARM/arm64architecture, what are the
semantics supposed to be? Maybe it's just DSB for us (complete all pending
maintenance).

> There are probably other models that could happen, but the patch
> set seems to assume a) is the only possible model, while the
> architecture description you cite seems to still allow both a) and
> b), as well as some variations, and it's possible that we will 
> see b) on arm64 servers but not a)

Well, we should be careful not to confuse the ACPI spec with the ARM
architecture. The latter is more permissive, but does disallow system
caches that do not respect broadcast maintenance.

It's also worth pointing out that the architecture doesn't distinguish
between embedded and server machines using A-class processors.

> You could also have a system that requires cache invalidation for
> sending data from the device to memory, but does not require anything
> for memory-to-device data, or you could have the opposite.

You could theoretically build all sorts of strange devices, but that doesn't
mean we have to support them. In the case you describe, they'd have to put
up with the cost of redundant cache cleaning but it should at least function
correctly.

Will