Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753733AbcDMVQn (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:16:43 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:46403 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750899AbcDMVQl (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:16:41 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 23:16:38 +0200 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Toshi Kani , "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Julia Lawall , Ingo Molnar , Toshi Kani , Paul McKenney , Dave Airlie , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, X86 ML , Daniel Vetter , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Borislav Petkov , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Andy Lutomirski , Brian Gerst Subject: Re: Overlapping ioremap() calls, set_memory_*() semantics Message-ID: <20160413211638.GF1990@wotan.suse.de> References: <20160304094424.GA16228@gmail.com> <1457115514.15454.216.camel@hpe.com> <20160305114012.GA7259@gmail.com> <1457370228.15454.311.camel@hpe.com> <20160308121601.GA6573@gmail.com> <1457483385.15454.519.camel@hpe.com> <20160309091525.GA11866@gmail.com> <1457734432.6393.199.camel@hpe.com> <20160316014548.GK1990@wotan.suse.de> <1458254693.6393.506.camel@hpe.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1458254693.6393.506.camel@hpe.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 6459 Lines: 130 On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 04:44:53PM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote: > On Wed, 2016-03-16 at 02:45 +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 03:13:52PM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote: > > > On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 10:15 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Toshi Kani wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 13:16 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Toshi Kani wrote: > > > > > > > ?: > > > > > Did you mean 'aliased' or 'aliased with different cache attribute'? > > > > > ?The former check might be too strict. > > > > > > > > I'd say even 'same attribute' aliasing is probably relatively rare. > > > > > > > > And 'different but compatible cache attribute' is in fact more of a > > > > sign that the driver author does the aliasing for a valid _reason_: > > > > to have two different types of access methods to the same piece of > > > > physical address space... > > > > > > Right. ?So, if we change to fail ioremap() on aliased cases, it'd be > > > easier to start with the different attribute case first. ?This case > > > should be rare enough that we can manage to identify such callers and > > > make them use a new API as necessary. ?If we go ahead to fail any > > > aliased cases, it'd be challenging to manage without a regression or > > > two. > > > > From my experience on the ioremap_wc() crusade, I found that the need for > > aliasing with different cache types would have been needed in only 3 > > drivers. For these 3, the atyfb driver I did the proper split in MMIO and > > framebuffer, but that was significant work.??I did this work to demo and > > document such work. It wasn't easy. For other two, ivtv and ipath we left > > as requiring "nopat" to be used. The ipath driver is on its way out of > > the kenrel now through staging, and ivtv, well I am not aware of single > > human being claiming to use it. The architecture of ivtv actually > > prohibits us from ever using PAT for write-combining on the framebuffer > > as the firmware is the only one who knows the write-combining area and > > hides it from us. > > At glace, there are 863 references to ioremap(), 329 references to > ioremap_nocache(), and only 68 references to ioremap_wc() on x86. ?There > are many more ioremap callers with UC mappings than WC mappings, and it is > hard to say that they never get aliased. We need to start somewhere. If we really want to vet / white list aliasing we probably will need both semantic analysis but perhaps also manual vetting, and finally a phase where we help WARN on uses we did not white-list. > > We might be able to use tools like Coccinelle to perhaps hunt for > > the use of aliasing on drivers with different cache attribute types > > to do a full assessment but I really think that will be really hard > > to accomplish. > > > > If we can learn anything from the ioremap_wc() crusade I'd say its that > > the need for aliasing with different cache types obviously implies we > > should disable such drivers with PAT as what we'd really need is a proper > > split in maps, but history shows the split can be really hard. It sounded > > like you guys were confirming we currently do not allow for aliasing with > > different attributes on x86, is that the case for all architectures? > > > > If aliasing with different cache attributes is not allowed for x86 and > > if its also rare for other architectures that just leaves the hunt for > > valid aliasing uses. That still may be hard to hunt for, but I also > > suspect it may be rare. > > Yes, I'd fail the different cache attribute case if we are to place more > strict check. OK it seems this is a good starting point. How can we get a general architecture consensus aliasing with different cache attributes is a terrible idea ? Perhaps a patch to WARN/error out and let architectures opt in to this piece of code? > > > I think the "set_memory_" prefix implies that their target is regular > > > memory only. > > > > I did not find any driver using set_memory_wc() on MMIO, its a good thing > > as that does not work it seems even if it returns no error.??I'm not sure > > of the use of other set_memory_*() on MMIO but I would suspect its not > > used. A manual hunt may suffice to rule these out. > > It's good to know that you did not find any case on MMIO. ?The thing is, > set_memory_wc() actually works on MMIO today... This is because __pa() > returns a bogus address, which skips the alias check in the memtype. Ingo, are you happy with that ? I honestly do not see the need for use of set_memory_wc() for the cases I reviewed, I think the case for write-combining can simply be addressed currently with ioremap_wc(). > > I guess what I'm trying to say is I am not sure we have a need for > > set_cache_attr_*() APIs, unless of course we find such valid use. > > > > > > And at that point we could definitely argue that set_cache_attr_*() > > > > APIs should probably generate a warning for _RAM_, because they > > > > mostly make sense for MMIO type of physical addresses, right? Regular > > > > RAM should always be WB. > > > > > > > > Are there cases where we change the caching attribute of RAM for > > > > valid reasons, outside of legacy quirks? > > > > > > ati_create_page_map() is one example that it gets a RAM page > > > by?__get_free_page(), and changes it to UC by calling?set_memory_uc(). > > > > Should we instead have an API that lets it ask for RAM and of UC type? > > That would seem a bit cleaner. BTW do you happen to know *why* it needs > > UC RAM types? > > This RAM page is then shared between graphic card and CPU. ?I think this is > because graphic card cannot snoop the cache. Was this reason alone sufficient to open such APIs broadly for RAM? > > > > > ?- It only supports attribute transition of {WB -> NewType -> WB} > > > > > for RAM. ?RAM is tracked differently that WB is treated as "no > > > > > map". ?So, this transition does not cause a conflict on RAM. ?This > > > > > will causes a conflict on MMIO when it is tracked correctly. ?? > > > > > > > > That looks like a bug? > > > > > > This is by design since set_memory_xx was introduced for RAM only. ?If > > > we extend it to MMIO, then we need to change how memtype manages MMIO. > > > > I'd be afraid to *want* to support this on MMIO as I would only expect > > hacks from drivers. > > Agreed, with the hope that they are not used on MMIO already... OK we'll need to review this. Luis