On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 08:59:06PM -0600, Shanker Donthineni wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> index f55fe5b..4061210 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> @@ -1095,6 +1095,27 @@ config ARM64_RAS_EXTN
> and access the new registers if the system supports the extension.
> Platform RAS features may additionally depend on firmware support.
>
> +config ARM64_CACHE_IDC
> + bool "Enable support for DCache clean PoU optimization"
> + default y
> + help
> + The data cache clean to the point of unification is not required
> + for instruction to be data coherence if CTR_EL0.IDC has value 1.
> +
> + Selecting this feature will allow the kernel to optimize the POU
> + cache maintaince operations where it requires 'DC CVAU'.
> +
> +config ARM64_CACHE_DIC
> + bool "Enable support for ICache invalidation PoU optimization"
> + default y
> + help
> + Instruction cache invalidation to the point of unification is not
> + required for instruction to be data coherence if CTR_EL0.DIC has
> + value 1.
> +
> + Selecting this feature will allow the kernel to optimize the POU
> + cache maintaince operations where it requires 'IC IVAU'.
A single Kconfig entry is sufficient for both features.
> @@ -864,6 +864,22 @@ static bool has_no_fpsimd(const struct
> arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int __unus
> ID_AA64PFR0_FP_SHIFT) < 0;
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_CACHE_IDC
> +static bool has_cache_idc(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry,
> + int __unused)
> +{
> + return !!(read_sanitised_ftr_reg(SYS_CTR_EL0) & (1UL << CTR_IDC_SHIFT));
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_CACHE_DIC
> +static bool has_cache_dic(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry,
> + int __unused)
> +{
> + return !!(read_sanitised_ftr_reg(SYS_CTR_EL0) & (1UL << CTR_DIC_SHIFT));
> +}
> +#endif
Nitpick: no need for !! since the function type is bool already.
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/cache.S b/arch/arm64/mm/cache.S
> index 758bde7..7d37d71 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/cache.S
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/cache.S
> @@ -50,6 +50,9 @@ ENTRY(flush_icache_range)
> */
> ENTRY(__flush_cache_user_range)
> uaccess_ttbr0_enable x2, x3, x4
> +alternative_if ARM64_HAS_CACHE_IDC
> + b 8f
> +alternative_else_nop_endif
> dcache_line_size x2, x3
> sub x3, x2, #1
> bic x4, x0, x3
> @@ -60,6 +63,11 @@ user_alt 9f, "dc cvau, x4", "dc civac, x4",
> ARM64_WORKAROUND_CLEAN_CACHE
> b.lo 1b
> dsb ish
>
> +8:
> +alternative_if ARM64_HAS_CACHE_DIC
> + mov x0, #0
> + b 1f
> +alternative_else_nop_endif
> invalidate_icache_by_line x0, x1, x2, x3, 9f
> mov x0, #0
> 1:
You can add another label at mov x0, #0 below this hunk and keep a
single instruction in the alternative path.
However, my worry is that in an implementation with DIC set, we also
skip the DSB/ISB sequence in the invalidate_icache_by_line macro. For
example, in an implementation with transparent PoU, we could have:
str <some instr>, [addr]
// no cache maintenance or barrier
br <addr>
Is an ISB required between the instruction store and execution? I would
say yes but maybe Will has a better opinion here.
--
Catalin
