Re: [tech-privileged] [PATCH] riscv: Support non-coherency memory model

Bill Huffman
2019-04-26T19:06:26Z

On 4/26/19 11:42 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> EXTERNAL MAIL
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:06 PM Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 11:50:11AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 4:23 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> You could probably get away with allowing uncached mappings only
>>> for huge pages, and using one or two of the bits the PMD for it.
>>> This should cover most use cases, since in practice coherent allocations
>>> tend to be either small and rare (device descriptors) or very big
>>> (frame buffer etc), and both cases can be handled with hugepages
>>> and gen_pool_alloc, possibly CMA added in since there will likely
>>> not be an IOMMU either on the systems that lack cache coherent DMA.
>>
>> Generally attributs in huge-tlb-entry and leaf-tlb-entry should be the
>> same. Only put _PAGE_CACHE and _PAGE_BUF bits in huge-tlb-entry sounds
>> a bit strange.
>
> Well, the point is that we can't really change the meaning of the existing
> low bits, but because of the alignment contraints on hugepages, the extra bits
> are currently unused for hugepage TLBs.
> There are other architectures that reuse the bits in clever ways, e.g.
> allowing larger physical address ranges to be used with hugepages than
> normal pages.
>
>> The gen_pool_alloc only 256KB by default, but a huge tlb entry is 4MB.
>> Hardware couldn't setup vitual-4MB to a phys-256KB range mapping in TLB.
>
> I expect the size would be easily changed, as long as there is sufficient
> physical memory. If the entire system has 32MB or less, setting 2MB aside
> would have a fairly significant impact of course.
>
>
>>> - you need to decide what is supposed to happen when there are
>>> multiple conflicting mappings for the same physical address.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> What's the mulitple confilcing mappings ?
>
> I mean when you have the linear mapping as cacheable and another
> mapping for the same physical page as uncacheable, and then access
> virtual address in both. This is usually a bad idea, but architectures
> go to different lengths to prevent it.
>
> The safest way would be for the CPU to produce a checkstop as soon
> as there are TLB entries for the same physical address but different
> caching settings. You can also do that if you have a cache-bypassing
> load/store that hits a live cache line.

The second one is probably do-able in most systems. But the first one
usually isn't. The TLB usually can't be looked up by physical address.

Bill

>
> The other extreme would be to not do anything special and try to come
> up with sane behavior, e.g. allow accesses in both ways but ensure that
> a cache-bypassing load/store always flushes and invalidates cache
> lines for the same physical address before its access.
>
> Arnd
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
>
> View/Reply Online (#395): https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.riscv.org_g_tech-2Dprivileged_message_395&d=DwIBaQ&c=aUq983L2pue2FqKFoP6PGHMJQyoJ7kl3s3GZ-_haXqY&r=AYJ4kbebphYpRw2lYDUDCk5w5Qa3-DR3bQnFjLVmM80&m=zf51zm7BmTNIb87ycEVTpGbwXV6ovRb4Rqy-BVXZ2F4&s=IWaqMk0fwM69syrjjmqzm5u3GeI_wWUYTJfBXCbxnWA&e=
> Mute This Topic: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.riscv.org_mt_31344322_1677293&d=DwIBaQ&c=aUq983L2pue2FqKFoP6PGHMJQyoJ7kl3s3GZ-_haXqY&r=AYJ4kbebphYpRw2lYDUDCk5w5Qa3-DR3bQnFjLVmM80&m=zf51zm7BmTNIb87ycEVTpGbwXV6ovRb4Rqy-BVXZ2F4&s=BwJEwbhCkTjHFPfiAQs7CBgG1U6kqM7yZbpSWXPTOoU&e=
> Group Owner: tech-privileged+owner@lists.riscv.org
> Unsubscribe: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.riscv.org_g_tech-2Dprivileged_unsub&d=DwIBaQ&c=aUq983L2pue2FqKFoP6PGHMJQyoJ7kl3s3GZ-_haXqY&r=AYJ4kbebphYpRw2lYDUDCk5w5Qa3-DR3bQnFjLVmM80&m=zf51zm7BmTNIb87ycEVTpGbwXV6ovRb4Rqy-BVXZ2F4&s=vSG91zravGfrVN9_elxveQPGPYaNew0MyETUvHfKSEk&e= [huffman@cadence.com]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>