Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] DO flush icache before set_pte() on ia64.

Nick Piggin
2007-07-04T06:31:06Z

KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> This is a experimental patch for fixing icache flush race of ia64(Montecito).
>
> Problem Description:
> Montecito, new ia64 processor, has separated L2 i-cache and d-cache,
> and i-cache and d-cache is not consistent in automatic way.
>
> L1 cache is also separated but L1 D-cache is write-through. Then, before
> Montecito, any changes in L1-dcache is visible in L2-mixed-cache consistently.
>
> Montecito has separated L2 cache and Mixed L3 cache. But...L2 D-cache is
> *write back*. (See http://download.intel.com/design/Itanium2/manuals/
> 30806501.pdf section 2.3.3)
>
> Assume : valid data is in L2 d-cache and old data in L3 mixed cache.
> If write-back L2->L3 is delayed, at L2 i-cache miss cpu will fetch old data
> in L3 mixed cache.
> By this, L2-icache-miss will read wrong instruction from L3-mixed cache.
> (Just I think so, is this correct ?)
>
> Anyway, there is SIGILL problem in NFS/ia64 and icache flush can fix
> SIGILL problem (in our HPC team test.)
>
> Following SIGILL issue occurs in current kernel.
> (This was a discussion in this April)
> - http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/archives/linux-ia64/0704/20323.html
> Usual file systems uses DMA and it purges cache. But NFS uses copy-by-cpu.
>
> This is HP-UX's errata comment:
> - http://h50221.www5.hp.com/upassist/itrc_japan/assist2/patchdigest/PHKL_36120.html
> (Sorry for Japanese page...but English comments also written. See PHKL_36120)
>
> Now, I think icache should be flushed before set_pte().
> This is a patch to try that.
>
> 1. remove all lazy_mmu_prot_update()...which is used by only ia64.
> 2. implements flush_cache_page()/flush_icache_page() for ia64.
>
> Something unsure....
> 3. mprotect() flushes cache before removing pte. Is this sane ?
> I added flush_icache_range() before set_pte() here.
>
> Any comments and advices ?

Thanks, this is the way I wanted to see it go in the generic code. (ie.
get rid of lazy_mmu_prot_uptdate and actually follow the cacheflush API
instead).

The only thing I noticed when I looked at the code is that some places
may not have flushed icache when they should have? Did you get them all?
Minor nitpick: you have one place where you test VM_EXEC before flushing,
but the flush routine itself contains the same test I think?

Regarding the ia64 code -- I'm not an expert so I can't say whether it
is the right thing to do or not. However I still can't work out what it's
rationale for the PG_arch_1 bit is, exactly. Does it assume that
flush_dcache_page sites would only ever be encountered by pages that are
not faulted in? A faulted in page kind of is "special" because it is
guaranteed uptodate, but is the ia64 arch code relying on that? Should it?
(there could definitely still be flush_dcache_page called on mapped pages,
but it should only be a subset of all possible sites -- I don't know if it
is too clean for ia64 cacheflush code to know that?). [*]

[*] all this is, as usual, predicated by the disclaimer that quirks in mm/
can result in mapped pages not being uptodate (in which case hell often
breaks loose in other ways anyway).

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.