[PATCH v3] arm64: Add support for new control bits CTR_EL0.DIC and CTR_EL0.IDC

[Robin Murphy]

On 21/02/18 16:14, Shanker Donthineni wrote:
[...]
>>> @@ -1100,6 +1114,20 @@ static int cpu_copy_el2regs(void *__unused)
>>>   		.enable = cpu_clear_disr,
>>>   	},
>>>   #endif /* CONFIG_ARM64_RAS_EXTN */
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_SKIP_CACHE_POU
>>> +	{
>>> +		.desc = "DCache clean to POU",
>>
>> This description is confusing, and sounds like it's describing DC CVAU, rather
>> than the ability to ellide it. How about:
>>
> 
> Sure, I'll take your suggestion.

Can we at least spell "elision" correctly please? ;)

Personally I read DIC and IDC as "D-cache to I-cache coherency" and 
"I-cache to D-cache coherency" respectively (just my interpretation, 
I've not looked into the spec work for any hints of rationale), but out 
loud those do sound so poorly-defined that keeping things in terms of 
the required maintenance probably is better.

>> 		.desc = "D-cache maintenance ellision (IDC)"
>>
>>> +		.capability = ARM64_HAS_CACHE_IDC,
>>> +		.def_scope = SCOPE_SYSTEM,
>>> +		.matches = has_cache_idc,
>>> +	},
>>> +	{
>>> +		.desc = "ICache invalidation to POU",
>>
>> ... and correspondingly:
>>
>> 		.desc = "I-cache maintenance ellision (DIC)"
>>
>>> +		.capability = ARM64_HAS_CACHE_DIC,
>>> +		.def_scope = SCOPE_SYSTEM,
>>> +		.matches = has_cache_dic,
>>> +	},
>>> +#endif /* CONFIG_ARM64_CACHE_DIC */
>>>   	{},
>>>   };
[...]
>>> +alternative_if ARM64_HAS_CACHE_DIC
>>> +	isb
>>
>> Why have we gained an ISB here if DIC is set?
>>
> 
> I believe synchronization barrier (ISB) is required here to support self-modifying/jump-labels
> code.
>    
>> This is for a user address, and I can't see why DIC would imply we need an
>> extra ISB kernel-side.
>>
> 
> This is for user and kernel addresses, alternatives and jumplabel patching logic
> calls flush_icache_range().

There's an ISB hidden in invalidate_icache_by_line(), so it probably 
would be unsafe to start implicitly skipping that.

>>> +	b	8f
>>> +alternative_else_nop_endif
>>>   	invalidate_icache_by_line x0, x1, x2, x3, 9f
>>> -	mov	x0, #0
>>> +8:	mov	x0, #0
>>>   1:
>>>   	uaccess_ttbr0_disable x1, x2
>>>   	ret
>>> @@ -80,6 +87,12 @@ ENDPROC(__flush_cache_user_range)
>>>    *	- end     - virtual end address of region
>>>    */
>>>   ENTRY(invalidate_icache_range)
>>> +alternative_if ARM64_HAS_CACHE_DIC
>>> +	mov	x0, xzr
>>> +	dsb	ish
>>
>> Do we actually need a DSB in this case?
>>
> 
> I'll remove if everyone agree.
> 
> Will, Can you comment on this?
> 
>> As-is, this function *only* invalidates the I-cache, so we already assume that
>> the data is visible at the PoU at this point. I don't see what extra gaurantee
>> we'd need the DSB for.

If so, then ditto for the existing invalidate_icache_by_line() code 
presumably.

Robin.