From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] Revert arm64 cache geometry
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 11:40:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151029114005.GB389@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1446068637-11509-1-git-send-email-avanbrunt@nvidia.com>
Hi Alex,
Thanks for describing the problem in depth here. I'm not at all happy
about the conclusion, but you're right and thanks for the report.
Minor comments below.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 02:43:54PM -0700, Alex Van Brunt wrote:
> This patchset reverts three patches that attempt to query the CPU for cache
> geometry and then make use of that information. Those patches rely on the
> NumSets and LineSize fields of CCSIDR to determine the cache geometry. However,
> the architectural documentation for these registers forbids such use:
>
> The parameters NumSets, Associativity, and LineSize in these registers
> define the architecturally visible parameters that are required for the
> cache maintenance by Set/Way instructions. They are not guaranteed to
> represent the actual microarchitectural features of a design. You cannot
> make any inference about the actual sizes of caches based on these
> parameters.
>
> It is not just theoretical. For example, the Denver CPU will report one set and
> one way in CCSIDR even though the actual microarchitectural implementation has
> many sets and many ways.
>
> I have two suggestions for how to get the cache geometry on an ARMv8 processor:
> 1. Specify the information in the device tree. The purpose of the deivce tree
> is to specify information that software cannot query at run-time. Becuase
> the architecture does not have an architectural way to query the cache
> geometry this may be a good fit.
> 2. Add a function pointer to cpu_table that gives a implementation specific
> way to query the cache geometry. For an A57, for example, the function
> could read the CCSIDR register because it happens to report the
> microarchitectural geometry. The Denver CPU has implementation defined
> registers that can be used to determine the microarchitectural geometry.
> However, the implementation for the default "AArch64 Processor", must
> return an error.
>
> The only place that the cache geometry is used is to determine if there can be
> aliasing for a VIPT (virtually-indexed, physically-tagged) instruction cache.
> The code assumes that there is no need to flush the entire instruction cache
> if the size of a cache set is less than or equal to a page size. However, the
> architectural definition of VIPT says "The only architecturally-guaranteed way
> to invalidate all aliases of a physical address from a VIPT instruction cache
> is to invalidate the entire instruction cache." Not only are the parameters not
> guaranteed to be correct, it is explicitly not legal to ignore aliasing even if
> the parameters were correct.
This is useful detail -- can you include it in the relevant commit messages
too, please? You can also drop the ChangeId tags and probably add Cc:
<stable@vger.kernel.org> tags as well.
We should also add a comment to the I-cache aliasing code to state why
we always nuke the entire I-cache, so that we don't "optimise" it again
in the future!
My final concern is how this impacts userspace parsing
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/cache/*. Do we need to stub that out with
dummy values and extend the device-tree properties to allow inner-cache
geometry to be described? I worry that simply removing the files under
there could break more than it solves.
Perhaps the right solution is to leave the cacheinfo code as-is and extend
it so that it prefers to use DT, falling back to the registers if the
properties are absent? That matches up with our treatment of MPIDR for
topology too and reduces the risk of breaking any existing software.
Patch 2 and 3 look fine as straight reverts, though (module my previous
comments about commit messages).
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-29 11:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-28 21:43 [PATCH 0/3] Revert arm64 cache geometry Alex Van Brunt
2015-10-28 21:43 ` [PATCH 1/3] Revert "arm64: kernel: add support for cpu cache information" Alex Van Brunt
2015-10-28 21:43 ` [PATCH 2/3] Revert "arm64: don't flag non-aliasing VIPT I-caches as aliasing" Alex Van Brunt
2015-10-28 21:43 ` [PATCH 3/3] Revert "arm64: add helper functions to read I-cache attributes" Alex Van Brunt
2015-10-29 3:22 ` [PATCH 0/3] Revert arm64 cache geometry Ard Biesheuvel
2015-10-29 11:20 ` Mark Rutland
2015-10-29 12:26 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-10-29 15:43 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-10-29 16:28 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-10-29 23:06 ` Alexander Van Brunt
2015-10-29 22:54 ` Alexander Van Brunt
2015-10-30 11:18 ` Will Deacon
2015-10-29 11:29 ` Mark Rutland
2015-10-29 11:43 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-10-29 11:40 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2015-10-29 23:03 ` Alexander Van Brunt
2015-10-30 11:00 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-10-30 11:10 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-10-30 11:57 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-10-30 12:27 ` Sudeep Holla
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=20151029114005.GB389@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).