[PATCH v3] arm64: enable EDAC on arm64

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 01:54:12PM +0100, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 05:09:16PM +0100, Rob Herring wrote:
>> >> +#ifndef ASM_EDAC_H
>> >> +#define ASM_EDAC_H
>> >> +/*
>> >> + * ECC atomic, DMA, SMP and interrupt safe scrub function.
>> >
>> > What do you mean by `DMA safe'? For coherent (cacheable) DMA buffers, this
>> > should work fine, but for non-coherent (and potentially non-cacheable)
>> > buffers, I think we'll have problems both due to the lack of guaranteed
>> > exclusive monitor support and also eviction of dirty lines.
>>
>> That's just copied from other implementations. I agree you could have
>> a problem here although I don't see why dirty line eviction would be.
>
> I was thinking of the case where you have an ongoing, non-coherent DMA
> transfer from a device and then the atomic_scrub routine runs in parallel
> on the CPU, targetting the same buffer. In this case, the stxr could store
> stale data back to the buffer, leading to corruption (since the monitor
> won't help). This differs from the case where the monitor could always
> report failure for non-cacheable regions, causing atomic_scrub to livelock.

It is only reads that will trigger an error and scrubbing. If the DMA
is continuously reading (such as a framebuffer), then there would not
be an issue. What would be the usecase where a DMA continously writes
to the same location without any synchronization with the cpu? I
suppose one core could re-trigger a DMA while another core is doing
the scrubbing. You would have to read the DMA data and be finished
with it quicker than the scrubbing could get handled. I just wonder
whether this is really only a theoretical problem, but not one in
practice.

>> There's not really a solution other than not doing s/w scrubbing or
>> doing it in h/w. So it is up to individual drivers to decide what to
>> do, but we have to provide this function just to enable EDAC.
>
> I think we need to avoid s/w scrubbing of non-cacheable memory altogether.

There's not really a way to determine the memory attributes easily
though. Whether it works depends on the h/w. Calxeda's memory
controller did have an exclusive monitor so I think this would have
worked even in the non-coherent case.

What exactly is your proposal to do here? I think we should assume the
h/w is designed correctly until we have a case that it is not.

Rob