On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 07:21:18PM +0530, Sahil Siddiq wrote:
> Hi Stafford,
>
> On 3/18/25 1:13 PM, Stafford Horne wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 12:06:30AM +0530, Sahil Siddiq wrote:
> > > On 3/17/25 1:55 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 at 07:59, Stafford Horne <sho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > @@ -176,8 +177,11 @@ void __init paging_init(void)
> > > > > barrier();
> > > > > /* Invalidate instruction caches after code modification */
> > > > > - mtspr(SPR_ICBIR, 0x900);
> > > > > - mtspr(SPR_ICBIR, 0xa00);
> > > > > + upr = mfspr(SPR_UPR);
> > > > > + if (upr & SPR_UPR_UP & SPR_UPR_ICP) {
> > > > > + mtspr(SPR_ICBIR, 0x900);
> > > > > + mtspr(SPR_ICBIR, 0xa00);
> > > > > + }
> > > > Here we could use new utilities such as local_icache_range_inv(0x900,
> > > > L1_CACHE_BYTES);
> > > >
> > > > Or something like local_icache_block_inv(0x900). This only needs to
> > > > flush a
> > > > single block as the code it is invalidating is just 2 instructions 8
> > > > bytes:
> > > >
> > > > .org 0x900
> > > > l.j boot_dtlb_miss_handler
> > > > l.nop
> > > >
> > > > .org 0xa00
> > > > l.j boot_itlb_miss_handler
> > > > l.nop
> > >
> > > Given that there'll be generic local_(i|d)cache_range_inv(start, stop)
> > > utility
> > > functions, would it make sense to simply have a macro defined as:
> > >
> > > #define local_icache_block_inv(addr) local_icache_range_inv(start,
> > > L1_CACHE_BYTES)
> > >
> > > instead of having a separate function for invalidating a single cache
> > > line? This would
> > > still use cache_loop() under the hood. The alternative would be to use
> > > local_icache_range_inv(start, L1_CACHE_BYTES) directly but using the
> > > macro might be
> > > more readable.
> >
> > Yes, I think a macro would be fine. Should we use cache_desc.block_size or
> > L1_CACHE_BYTES? It doesn't make much difference as L1_CACHE_BYTES is
> > defined as
> > 16 bytes which is the minimum block size and using that will always
> > invalidate a
> > whole block. It would be good to have a comment explaining why using
> > L1_CACHE_BYTES is enough.
> >
>
> While working on the patch's v3, I realized I am a bit unclear here. Is the
> ".org"
> macro used to set the address at which the instructions are stored in memory?
> If so,
> the first two instructions should occupy the memory area 0x900 through 0x907,
> right?
> Similarly, the next two instructions will occupy 0xa00-0xa07.
>
> Since the two instructions are 256 bytes apart, they shouldn't be cached in
> the same
> cache line, right? Maybe one cache line will have 16 bytes starting from
> 0x900 while
> another cache line will have 16 bytes starting from 0xa00.
Yes, to invalidate the cache we will need to do:
local_icache_block_inv(0x900);
local_icache_block_inv(0xa00);
This will then compile down to the pretty much same as, (but with checks to
validate the caches exist first):
mtspr(0x900);
mtspr(0xa00);
> If the above is true, I think it'll be better to simply call mtspr() for each
> address
> individually.
Thats right, but I figured the local_icache_block_inv function/macro would be
more useful other than just this block.
-Stafford
