Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/5] arm/xen: define xen_remap as ioremap_cached

[Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:58:57PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 12:28:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > PROT_PTE_DEVICE and PROT_SECT_DEVICE above don't contain any memory type
> > information, just attributes/permission - present, young, dirty and XN:
> > 
> > #define PROT_PTE_DEVICE             
> > L_PTE_PRESENT|L_PTE_YOUNG|L_PTE_DIRTY|L_PTE_XN
> > #define PROT_SECT_DEVICE    PMD_TYPE_SECT|PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE
> > 
> > The memory type is given by the L_PTE_MT_DEV_CACHED and PMD_SECT_WB
> > macros. Let's take prot_sect first as it's simpler. For MT_DEVICE_CACHED
> > we have:
> > 
> > .prot_sect = PMD_TYPE_SECT | PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE | PMD_SECT_WB
> > 
> > For MT_MEMORY we have:
> > 
> > .prot_sect = PMD_TYPE_SECT | PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE
> > 
> > The cache policy is added later to MT_MEMORY which is either WB or WBWA
> > (based on SMP, no particular reason as these are just processor hints;
> > for some historical reasons we enabled WBWA for ARM11MPCore but we could
> > leave it on all the time).
> 
> They may be reported to be just hints, but SMP, particularly ARM11MPCore,
> the SMP guys at ARM Ltd were very particular about _requiring_ and stating
> that it is required that WBWA must be used in the page tables for SMP,
> and not WB.  That suggests while the ARM ARM may say that they're hints,
> there's slightly more to it when it comes to SMP, and WBWA is a hard
> requirement there.

It may have been a hard requirement in the early days (FPGA?), I don't
fully remember. The ARM11MPCore TRM for r1p0 states "Inner Write-Back No
Allocate on Write behaves as Write-back Write-Allocate".

Anyway, my comment above was for leaving it on all the time (v6 and v7).

> > Similarly for prot_pte, present, young, dirty are the same.
> > 
> > Regarding the type, on ARMv7 (with or without LPAE) we use TEX remapping
> > and L_PTE_MT_DEVICE has the same index (3-bit TEX[0], C, B for NMRR/PRRR
> > or TEX[2:0] for MAIR0/MAIR1 registers) as Normal Cacheable Writeback
> > memory (there is no such thing as Device memory with cacheability
> > attributes, only Normal Cacheable memory).
> 
> You don't mean L_PTE_MT_DEVICE there. Thankfully, L_PTE_MT_DEVICE doesn't
> exist, so it's not that confusing.  What you mean is L_PTE_MT_DEV_CACHED,
> which _does_ map to "normal cacheable writeback memory" irrespective of
> the mappings which the kernel uses for RAM.

Yes, that's what I meant.

> However, that mapping type (which is used for MT_DEVICE_CACHED) should
> not be used if you really do want normal memory. 

Well, you want some range mapped as cacheable, so on ARM
MT_DEVICE_CACHED gives you normal memory. I'm not sure in the Xen
context where this memory comes from, it looks like some physical
address not under kernel control. There are other ways to map this but
ioremap_cached() seems right for this situation (x86 has a similar
definition for xen_remap).

BTW, it looks like 3 architectures call this 'ioremap_cached' while
other 3 (or 4) call it 'ioremap_cache'. Not a standard API.

> And using MT_* definitions
> _not_ in asm/io.h with ioremap() is really... silly.  It's not something
> that is intended, nor is it something which I intend to be supportable
> into the future on ARM.  That's why the definitions are separate - see
> the comments in asm/io.h about "types 4 onwards are undefined for
> ioremap" - I'm not sure how more explicit to make that statement.  And
> as I _have_ made the statement, if I see people violating it, I won't
> care about their code if/when I decide to change the ioremap() behaviour.

That's a fair point.

-- 
Catalin

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel