Hi Catalin,
On 2020/7/10 1:36, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 05:10:54PM +0800, Zhenyu Ye wrote:
>> #define __tlbi_level(op, addr, level) do { \
>> u64 arg = addr; \
>> \
>> if (cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_ARMv8_4_TTL) && \
>> + !cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_TLBI_RANGE) && \
>> level) { \
>> u64 ttl = level & 3; \
>> - \
>> - switch (PAGE_SIZE) { \
>> - case SZ_4K: \
>> - ttl |= TLBI_TTL_TG_4K << 2; \
>> - break; \
>> - case SZ_16K: \
>> - ttl |= TLBI_TTL_TG_16K << 2; \
>> - break; \
>> - case SZ_64K: \
>> - ttl |= TLBI_TTL_TG_64K << 2; \
>> - break; \
>> - } \
>> - \
>> + ttl |= get_trans_granule() << 2; \
>> arg &= ~TLBI_TTL_MASK; \
>> arg |= FIELD_PREP(TLBI_TTL_MASK, ttl); \
>> } \
>
> I think checking for !ARM64_HAS_TLBI_RANGE here is incorrect. I can see
> why you attempted this since the range and classic ops have a different
> position for the level but now you are not passing the TTL at all for
> the classic TLBI. It's also inconsistent to have the range ops get the
> level in the addr argument while the classic ops added in the
> __tlbi_level macro.
>
You are right, this is really a serious problem. But this can be avoided
after removing the check for ARM64_HAS_TLBI_RANGE and dropping the
__tlbi_last_level.
Just call __tlbi() and __tlbi_user() when doing range ops.
> I'd rather have two sets of macros, __tlbi_level and __tlbi_range_level,
> called depending on whether you use classic or range ops.
>
Then we have to add __tlbi_user_range_level, too. And if we move the num
and scale out of __TLBI_VADDR_RANGE, the __TLBI_VADDR_RANGE macro will make
little sense (addr and asid also can be moved out).
__TLBI_VADDR macro is defined to create a properly formatted VA operand for
the TLBI, then how about add the level to __TLBI_VADDR, just like:
#define __TLBI_VADDR(addr, asid, level) \
({ \
unsigned long __ta = (addr) >> 12; \
__ta &= GENMASK_ULL(43, 0); \
__ta |= (unsigned long)(asid) << 48; \
if (cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_ARMv8_4_TTL)) { \
u64 ttl = get_trans_granule() << 2 + level & 3; \
__ta |= ttl << 44; \
} \
__ta; \
})
Then we should make sure __TLBI_VADDR is used for all TLBI operands. But
the related code has changed a lot in this merge window, so I perfer to
do this in the future, after all below be merged:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git
kvm-arm64/el2-obj-v4.1
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git
kvm-arm64/pre-nv-5.9
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git for-next/tlbi
Currently, keep the range ops get the level in the addr argument, the classic
ops added the level in the __tlbi_level macro.
>> @@ -108,6 +119,49 @@
>> __tlbi_level(op, (arg | USER_ASID_FLAG), level); \
>> } while (0)
>>
>> +#define __tlbi_last_level(op1, op2, arg, last_level, tlb_level) do {
>> \
>> + if (last_level) { \
>> + __tlbi_level(op1, arg, tlb_level); \
>> + __tlbi_user_level(op1, arg, tlb_level); \
>> + } else { \
>> + __tlbi_level(op2, arg, tlb_level); \
>> + __tlbi_user_level(op2, arg, tlb_level); \
>> + } \
>> +} while (0)
>
> And you could drop this altogether. I know it's slightly more lines of
> code but keeping it expanded in __flush_tlb_range() would be clearer.
Thanks,
Zhenyu
