Re: [PATCH v3 09/31] arm64: Cache maintenance routines
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Date: 2012-09-13 12:40:07
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, lkml
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:55:54PM +0100, Simon Baatz wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:29:54AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
+void __flush_dcache_page(struct address_space *mapping, struct page *page) +{ + __flush_dcache_area(page_address(page), PAGE_SIZE); +} + +void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pte) +{ + unsigned long pfn; + struct page *page; + + pfn = pte_pfn(pte); + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) + return; + + page = pfn_to_page(pfn); + if (!test_and_set_bit(PG_dcache_clean, &page->flags)) + __flush_dcache_page(NULL, page); + __flush_icache_all(); +} + +/* + * Ensure cache coherency between kernel mapping and userspace mapping of this + * page. + */ +void flush_dcache_page(struct page *page) +{ + struct address_space *mapping; + + /* + * The zero page is never written to, so never has any dirty cache + * lines, and therefore never needs to be flushed. + */ + if (page == ZERO_PAGE(0)) + return; + + mapping = page_mapping(page); + + if (mapping && !mapping_mapped(mapping)) + clear_bit(PG_dcache_clean, &page->flags); + else { + __flush_dcache_page(mapping, page); + if (mapping) + __flush_icache_all();Is this necessary to ensure I/D coherency? Then, I would have expected if (mapping) { __flush_dcache_page(mapping, page); __flush_icache_all(); } similar to __sync_icache_dcache() above.We don't want to do additional flushing if !mapping_mapped() as the page isn't mapped in user space. In this case we defer the flushing until __sync_icache_dcache(). The other case is for anonymous pages where mapping == NULL. Here we don't defer the D-cache flush and do it directly. The I-cache, if needed, is handled later in __sync_icache_dcache(). This was based on the idea that this case is mainly for the args/env page which is mapped shortly after anyway, so not worth deferring. On AArch64, I don't think it makes any difference. Maybe a slight improvement (at least in clarity) in flush_dcache_page(): if (mapping && mapping_mapped(mapping)) { __flush_dcache_page(page); __flush_icache_all(); set_bit(PG_dcache_clean, &page->flags); } else { clear_bit(PG_dcache_clean, &page->flags); } In this case the anonymous page flushing is deferred to __sync_icache_dcache().Yes, I think this is much clearer. It makes clear that the D-cache flush is done to avoid I/D incoherencies. Previously, the obvious question was "Why do we flush only the D-cache in some situations given that it essentially behaves like a PIPT cache?" (the motivation for this became only clear to me after your explanation.) However, the reason why this was an obvious question for me is interesting: I think the main use case you had in mind does not happen since about five years (since commit b6a2fe, "mm: variable length argument support"). And I had a completely different main use case in mind. I reckon that the use case you refer to is the use in fs/exec.c? Copying arg/env was changed in the commit mentioned above. This also changed the use of flush_dcache_page() (which is not supposed to handle anon pages) into flush_kernel_dcache_page() (which is supposed to handle kernel modified user pages, i.e. also anon pages).
That's what I was thinking about, thanks for the pointer. I still get a flush_dcache_page() call (on the source page) from copy_strings() via get_user_page() but with my changes above it doesn't trigger any cache flushing (which is correct).
In case of direct I/O (and probably also in other cases like SG_IO) the block layer will see pages from get_user_pages() directly, i.e. also anonymous pages. Many drivers (especially emulated storage drivers like dm-crypt) use flush_dcache_page() after modifying a page. Although flush_dcache_page() is not even supposed to handle anonymous pages, it flushes the kernel mapping of the page because of this code line and everything is well on aliasing D-caches.
According to the cachetlb.txt document (though not sure architecture ports follow it entirely), flush_dcache_page() deliberately shouldn't follow anonymous pages. But it seems that we do it on ARM (maybe as an alternative to flush_kernel_dcache_page()).
Back to arm64 (and possibly to arm with non-aliasing D-caches?), this also means that the saved D-cache flush in the anonymous page case is not only a slight improvement on clarity, but may avoid a considerable number of D-cache flushes in some I/O situations. (If it is still correct that there are no problems with the I-cache for this use case.)
The I-cache would be needed if the kernel modifies an executable user page. But I don't see a case for this yet. So with non-aliasing D-cache the flush_kernel_dcache_page() can be a nop.
If now we could additionally avoid to flush the entire I-cache for every page in direct I/O operations with user mapped page cache pages (e.g. direct I/O read into an mmap region)...
If the page is already mapped, we don't have a later hook to be able to flush the caches, so we do it here. We can avoid the I-cache operation only if we are sure that the user would not execute code from such page. IOW the direct I/O wouldn't write any instructions. The powerpc implementation of flush_dcache_page() doesn't even check for the existence of a mapping, it always marks the page as dirty. We can do the same on arm64 (only leave the clear_bit part of the condition) as long as we know that the kernel wouldn't write new code into a page that is already mapped.
quoted
quoted
What is the reason why the D-cache flush is done in different cases than the following I-cache flush?For __sync_icache_dcache(), we need to handle the situation where the page mapped into user space has been cleaned (D-cache) but there may be stale data in the I-cache. I think this can only happen with an ASID-tagged VIVT I-cache configuration (which is allowed on AArch64) if an existing page has been unmapped and the same virtual address remapped (withing the same mm context) to a different page that had been cleaned previously. We could optimise the __sync_icache_dcache() as below: if (!test_and_set_bit(PG_dcache_clean, &page->flags)) { __flush_dcache_page(page); __flush_icache_all(); } else if (icache_is_aivivt()) { __flush_icache_all(); }Sorry, this is out of my depth. I think I don't really understand the cases leading to I/D incoherency.
That's with a VIVT I-cache where a process mapped some file at a virtual address, unmapped it and remapped a different file at the same virtual address. For the latter file, the page may have already been cleaned by a different process but our process has stale I-cache entries from the previous mapping. With physically tagged I-cache, this wouldn't be necessary. -- Catalin