From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Li Yang <leoli@freescale.com>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/mm: setting mmaped page cache property through device tree
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 05:15:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0CED0757-67E3-4EAD-A2F7-AB8553559E94@kernel.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2a27d3730912012225h3deab5dao2211bc404d247192@mail.gmail.com>
>>> The scenario for the first case is that in a multicore system
>>> running
>>> ASMP which means different OS runs on different cores. They might
>>> communicate through a shared memory region. The region on every OS
>>> need to be mapped with the same cache perperty to avoid cache
>>> paradox.
>>
>> This isn't true. In ASMP, you cannot usually do coherency between
>> the different CPUs at all. Also, in most PowerPC implementations,
>
> Coherency can't be achieved with proper configuration and
> management? Why so?
Because different CPUs do not usually speak the same coherency protocol.
However, it occurred to me that what you call ASMP is actually SMP where
you run different OSes on the various cores?
>> it is fine if one CPU maps a memory range as coherent while another
>> maps it as non-coherent; sure, you have to be careful or you will
>
> But we do want the shared region to be coherent. So mappings should
> have the same cacheability property.
No, they only need WIMG=xx1x on both sides. Of course, IM=11 might not
be a valid combination on your particular CPU, and it probably is better
for performance to have the RAM cacheable anyway.
>> So make the memory known to the kernel, just tell the kernel not to
>> use it. If it's normal system RAM, just put it in the "memory" node
>> and do a memreserve on it (or do something in your platform code); if
>> it's some other memory, do a device driver for it, map it there.
>
> Your solution is feasible. But the memory allocation is a software
> configuration. IMHO, it should be better and easier addressed by
> changing configurations(like mem parameter) rather than the kernel
> platform code which should address hardware configuration.
Either platform code or some other boot-time code, sure.
The point is, you put the RAM in the device tree, so the kernel can
know that particular range of physical address space is RAM, even
if it doesn't use it itself.
Segher
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-03 4:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-01 10:30 [PATCH] powerpc/mm: setting mmaped page cache property through device tree Li Yang
2009-12-01 10:58 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-12-01 11:34 ` Li Yang
2009-12-01 14:35 ` Segher Boessenkool
2009-12-02 6:25 ` Li Yang
2009-12-03 4:15 ` Segher Boessenkool [this message]
2009-12-03 6:15 ` Li Yang
2009-12-04 2:38 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-12-04 2:37 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
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=0CED0757-67E3-4EAD-A2F7-AB8553559E94@kernel.crashing.org \
--to=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=leoli@freescale.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.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