Synchronization is recommended before disabling the trace registers to prevent any start or stop points being speculative at the point of disabling the unit (section 7.3.77 of ARM IHI 0064D).
Synchronization is also recommended after programming the trace registers to ensure all updates are committed prior to normal code resuming (section 4.3.7 of ARM IHI 0064D).
Let's ensure these syncronization points are present in the code and clearly commented.
Note that we could rely on the barriers in CS_LOCK and coresight_disclaim_device_unlocked or the context switch to user space - however coresight may be of use in the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray andrew.murray@arm.com CC: stable@vger.kernel.org --- drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c index c89190d464ab..68e8e3954cef 100644 --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c @@ -188,6 +188,10 @@ static int etm4_enable_hw(struct etmv4_drvdata *drvdata) dev_err(etm_dev, "timeout while waiting for Idle Trace Status\n");
+ /* As recommended by 4.3.7 of ARM IHI 0064D */ + dsb(sy); + isb(); + done: CS_LOCK(drvdata->base);
@@ -454,7 +458,8 @@ static void etm4_disable_hw(void *info) control &= ~0x1;
/* make sure everything completes before disabling */ - mb(); + /* As recommended by 7.3.77 of ARM IHI 0064D */ + dsb(sy); isb(); writel_relaxed(control, drvdata->base + TRCPRGCTLR);
Hi Andrew,
On 27/06/2019 09:35, Andrew Murray wrote:
Synchronization is recommended before disabling the trace registers to prevent any start or stop points being speculative at the point of disabling the unit (section 7.3.77 of ARM IHI 0064D).
Synchronization is also recommended after programming the trace registers to ensure all updates are committed prior to normal code resuming (section 4.3.7 of ARM IHI 0064D).
Let's ensure these syncronization points are present in the code and clearly commented.
Please could you also mention why we switched from mb() ?
Note that we could rely on the barriers in CS_LOCK and coresight_disclaim_device_unlocked or the context switch to user space - however coresight may be of use in the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray andrew.murray@arm.com CC: stable@vger.kernel.org
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c index c89190d464ab..68e8e3954cef 100644 --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c @@ -188,6 +188,10 @@ static int etm4_enable_hw(struct etmv4_drvdata *drvdata) dev_err(etm_dev, "timeout while waiting for Idle Trace Status\n");
- /* As recommended by 4.3.7 of ARM IHI 0064D */
nit: It would be good to mention the "section name" to help the reader find the same on a different version of the document. Also within the same version, this is listed in the subsection: "Synchronization when using the memory-mapped interface"
Please could you update the comment to reflect the same ?
- dsb(sy);
- isb();
- done: CS_LOCK(drvdata->base);
@@ -454,7 +458,8 @@ static void etm4_disable_hw(void *info) control &= ~0x1; /* make sure everything completes before disabling */
- mb();
- /* As recommended by 7.3.77 of ARM IHI 0064D */
Nit: This refers to completely unrelated section. Shouldn't this be the same as above ?
With the above fixed:
Reviewed-by: Suzuki K Poulose suzuki.poulose@arm.com
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:16:17AM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 27/06/2019 09:35, Andrew Murray wrote:
Synchronization is recommended before disabling the trace registers to prevent any start or stop points being speculative at the point of disabling the unit (section 7.3.77 of ARM IHI 0064D).
Synchronization is also recommended after programming the trace registers to ensure all updates are committed prior to normal code resuming (section 4.3.7 of ARM IHI 0064D).
Let's ensure these syncronization points are present in the code and clearly commented.
Please could you also mention why we switched from mb() ?
No problem.
Note that we could rely on the barriers in CS_LOCK and coresight_disclaim_device_unlocked or the context switch to user space - however coresight may be of use in the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray andrew.murray@arm.com CC: stable@vger.kernel.org
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c index c89190d464ab..68e8e3954cef 100644 --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c @@ -188,6 +188,10 @@ static int etm4_enable_hw(struct etmv4_drvdata *drvdata) dev_err(etm_dev, "timeout while waiting for Idle Trace Status\n");
- /* As recommended by 4.3.7 of ARM IHI 0064D */
nit: It would be good to mention the "section name" to help the reader find the same on a different version of the document. Also within the same version, this is listed in the subsection: "Synchronization when using the memory-mapped interface"
Please could you update the comment to reflect the same ?
Yes sure.
- dsb(sy);
- isb();
- done: CS_LOCK(drvdata->base);
@@ -454,7 +458,8 @@ static void etm4_disable_hw(void *info) control &= ~0x1; /* make sure everything completes before disabling */
- mb();
- /* As recommended by 7.3.77 of ARM IHI 0064D */
Nit: This refers to completely unrelated section. Shouldn't this be the same as above ?
Actually 4.3.7 relates to using dsb/isb after programming the trace unit registers and indicates this is to 'ensure that all updates are committed to the trace unit before normal code execution resumes'.
Whereas 7.3.77 (hidden awawy in the SSTATUS description) relates to using dsb/isb before disabling the trace unit to 'prevent any start or stop points being specualtive at the point of disabling the trace unit'.
Both sections suggest the same course of action - however I felt that the description in 7.3.77 better related to the context of etm4_disable_hw.
Perhaps if I also add the section name, readers are more likely to find this text?
With the above fixed:
Reviewed-by: Suzuki K Poulose suzuki.poulose@arm.com
Thanks,
Andrew Murray
Hi Andrew,
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 09:35:22AM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote:
Synchronization is recommended before disabling the trace registers to prevent any start or stop points being speculative at the point of disabling the unit (section 7.3.77 of ARM IHI 0064D).
Synchronization is also recommended after programming the trace registers to ensure all updates are committed prior to normal code resuming (section 4.3.7 of ARM IHI 0064D).
Let's ensure these syncronization points are present in the code and clearly commented.
Note that we could rely on the barriers in CS_LOCK and coresight_disclaim_device_unlocked or the context switch to user space - however coresight may be of use in the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray andrew.murray@arm.com CC: stable@vger.kernel.org
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c index c89190d464ab..68e8e3954cef 100644 --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c @@ -188,6 +188,10 @@ static int etm4_enable_hw(struct etmv4_drvdata *drvdata) dev_err(etm_dev, "timeout while waiting for Idle Trace Status\n");
- /* As recommended by 4.3.7 of ARM IHI 0064D */
- dsb(sy);
- isb();
I read the spec, it recommends to use dsb/isb after accessing trace unit, so here I think dsb(sy) is the most safe way.
arm64 defines barrier in arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h:
#define mb() dsb(sy)
so here I suggest to use barriers:
mb(); isb();
I wrongly assumed that mb() is for dmb operations, but actually it's defined for dsb operation. So we should use it and this is a common function between arm64 and arm.
done: CS_LOCK(drvdata->base); @@ -454,7 +458,8 @@ static void etm4_disable_hw(void *info) control &= ~0x1; /* make sure everything completes before disabling */
- mb();
- /* As recommended by 7.3.77 of ARM IHI 0064D */
- dsb(sy);
Here the old code should be right, mb() is the same thing with dsb(sy).
So we don't need to change at here?
Thanks, Leo Yan
isb(); writel_relaxed(control, drvdata->base + TRCPRGCTLR); -- 2.21.0
CoreSight mailing list CoreSight@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/coresight
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:45:29AM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 09:35:22AM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote:
Synchronization is recommended before disabling the trace registers to prevent any start or stop points being speculative at the point of disabling the unit (section 7.3.77 of ARM IHI 0064D).
Synchronization is also recommended after programming the trace registers to ensure all updates are committed prior to normal code resuming (section 4.3.7 of ARM IHI 0064D).
Let's ensure these syncronization points are present in the code and clearly commented.
Note that we could rely on the barriers in CS_LOCK and coresight_disclaim_device_unlocked or the context switch to user space - however coresight may be of use in the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray andrew.murray@arm.com CC: stable@vger.kernel.org
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c index c89190d464ab..68e8e3954cef 100644 --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c @@ -188,6 +188,10 @@ static int etm4_enable_hw(struct etmv4_drvdata *drvdata) dev_err(etm_dev, "timeout while waiting for Idle Trace Status\n");
- /* As recommended by 4.3.7 of ARM IHI 0064D */
- dsb(sy);
- isb();
I read the spec, it recommends to use dsb/isb after accessing trace unit, so here I think dsb(sy) is the most safe way.
arm64 defines barrier in arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h:
#define mb() dsb(sy)
so here I suggest to use barriers:
mb(); isb();
I wrongly assumed that mb() is for dmb operations, but actually it's defined for dsb operation. So we should use it and this is a common function between arm64 and arm.
done: CS_LOCK(drvdata->base); @@ -454,7 +458,8 @@ static void etm4_disable_hw(void *info) control &= ~0x1; /* make sure everything completes before disabling */
- mb();
- /* As recommended by 7.3.77 of ARM IHI 0064D */
- dsb(sy);
Here the old code should be right, mb() is the same thing with dsb(sy).
So we don't need to change at here?
Correct - on arm64 there is no difference between mb and dsb(sy) so no functional change on this hunk.
In repsonse to Suzuki's feedback on this patch, I've updated the commit message to describe why I've made this change, as follows:
"On armv8 the mb macro is defined as dsb(sy) - Given that the etm4x is only used on armv8 let's directly use dsb(sy) instead of mb(). This removes some ambiguity and makes it easier to correlate the code with the TRM."
Does that make sense?
Thanks,
Andrew Murray
Thanks, Leo Yan
isb(); writel_relaxed(control, drvdata->base + TRCPRGCTLR); -- 2.21.0
CoreSight mailing list CoreSight@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/coresight
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 09:35:24AM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote:
[...]
@@ -454,7 +458,8 @@ static void etm4_disable_hw(void *info) control &= ~0x1; /* make sure everything completes before disabling */
- mb();
- /* As recommended by 7.3.77 of ARM IHI 0064D */
- dsb(sy);
Here the old code should be right, mb() is the same thing with dsb(sy).
So we don't need to change at here?
Correct - on arm64 there is no difference between mb and dsb(sy) so no functional change on this hunk.
In repsonse to Suzuki's feedback on this patch, I've updated the commit message to describe why I've made this change, as follows: "On armv8 the mb macro is defined as dsb(sy) - Given that the etm4x is only used on armv8 let's directly use dsb(sy) instead of mb(). This removes some ambiguity and makes it easier to correlate the code with the TRM."
Does that make sense?
On reason for preferring to use mb() rather than dsb(sy) is for compatibility cross different architectures (armv7, armv8, and so on ...). Seems to me mb() is a general API and transparent for architecture's difference.
dsb(sy) is quite dependent on specific Arm architecture, e.g. some old Arm architecures might don't support dsb(sy); and we are not sure later it will change for new architectures.
Thanks, Leo Yan
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 04:51:54PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 09:35:24AM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote:
[...]
@@ -454,7 +458,8 @@ static void etm4_disable_hw(void *info) control &= ~0x1; /* make sure everything completes before disabling */
- mb();
- /* As recommended by 7.3.77 of ARM IHI 0064D */
- dsb(sy);
Here the old code should be right, mb() is the same thing with dsb(sy).
So we don't need to change at here?
Correct - on arm64 there is no difference between mb and dsb(sy) so no functional change on this hunk.
In repsonse to Suzuki's feedback on this patch, I've updated the commit message to describe why I've made this change, as follows: "On armv8 the mb macro is defined as dsb(sy) - Given that the etm4x is only used on armv8 let's directly use dsb(sy) instead of mb(). This removes some ambiguity and makes it easier to correlate the code with the TRM."
Does that make sense?
On reason for preferring to use mb() rather than dsb(sy) is for compatibility cross different architectures (armv7, armv8, and so on ...). Seems to me mb() is a general API and transparent for architecture's difference.
dsb(sy) is quite dependent on specific Arm architecture, e.g. some old Arm architecures might don't support dsb(sy); and we are not sure later it will change for new architectures.
Yes but please note that the KConfig for this driver depends on ARM64.
Thanks,
Andrew Murray
Thanks, Leo Yan
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:00:14AM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 04:51:54PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 09:35:24AM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote:
[...]
@@ -454,7 +458,8 @@ static void etm4_disable_hw(void *info) control &= ~0x1; /* make sure everything completes before disabling */
- mb();
- /* As recommended by 7.3.77 of ARM IHI 0064D */
- dsb(sy);
Here the old code should be right, mb() is the same thing with dsb(sy).
So we don't need to change at here?
Correct - on arm64 there is no difference between mb and dsb(sy) so no functional change on this hunk.
In repsonse to Suzuki's feedback on this patch, I've updated the commit message to describe why I've made this change, as follows: "On armv8 the mb macro is defined as dsb(sy) - Given that the etm4x is only used on armv8 let's directly use dsb(sy) instead of mb(). This removes some ambiguity and makes it easier to correlate the code with the TRM."
Does that make sense?
On reason for preferring to use mb() rather than dsb(sy) is for compatibility cross different architectures (armv7, armv8, and so on ...). Seems to me mb() is a general API and transparent for architecture's difference.
dsb(sy) is quite dependent on specific Arm architecture, e.g. some old Arm architecures might don't support dsb(sy); and we are not sure later it will change for new architectures.
Yes but please note that the KConfig for this driver depends on ARM64.
Understood your point.
I am a bit suspect it's right thing to always set dependency on ARM64 for ETMv4 driver. The reason is Armv8 CPU can also run with aarch32 mode in EL1.
If we let ETMv4 driver to support both aarch32 and aarch64, then we will see dsb(sy) might break building for some old Arm arches.
Thanks, Leo Yan
Hi Leo,
On 28/06/2019 10:41, Leo Yan wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:00:14AM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 04:51:54PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 09:35:24AM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote:
[...]
@@ -454,7 +458,8 @@ static void etm4_disable_hw(void *info) control &= ~0x1; /* make sure everything completes before disabling */
- mb();
- /* As recommended by 7.3.77 of ARM IHI 0064D */
- dsb(sy);
Here the old code should be right, mb() is the same thing with dsb(sy).
So we don't need to change at here?
Correct - on arm64 there is no difference between mb and dsb(sy) so no functional change on this hunk.
In repsonse to Suzuki's feedback on this patch, I've updated the commit message to describe why I've made this change, as follows: "On armv8 the mb macro is defined as dsb(sy) - Given that the etm4x is only used on armv8 let's directly use dsb(sy) instead of mb(). This removes some ambiguity and makes it easier to correlate the code with the TRM."
Does that make sense?
On reason for preferring to use mb() rather than dsb(sy) is for compatibility cross different architectures (armv7, armv8, and so on ...). Seems to me mb() is a general API and transparent for architecture's difference.
dsb(sy) is quite dependent on specific Arm architecture, e.g. some old Arm architecures might don't support dsb(sy); and we are not sure later it will change for new architectures.
Yes but please note that the KConfig for this driver depends on ARM64.
Understood your point.
I am a bit suspect it's right thing to always set dependency on ARM64 for ETMv4 driver. The reason is Armv8 CPU can also run with aarch32 mode in EL1.
If we let ETMv4 driver to support both aarch32 and aarch64, then we will see dsb(sy) might break building for some old Arm arches.
If we add support for ETMv4 on aarch32, I would recommend adding a "dsb" explicitly for aarch32 to make sure, it doesn't default to something else that the mb() may cover up as. There is no point in creating another level of indirection when the architecture is clear about it and the ETMv4 supporting architectures must implement "dsb". Had this been in a generic code, I would be happy to retain mb(). But this is specific to the ETMv4 driver and we know that dsb must be there.
Cheers Suzuki
Hi Suzuki,
On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 09:58:29AM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
Hi Leo,
On 28/06/2019 10:41, Leo Yan wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:00:14AM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 04:51:54PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 09:35:24AM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote:
[...]
> @@ -454,7 +458,8 @@ static void etm4_disable_hw(void *info) > control &= ~0x1; > /* make sure everything completes before disabling */ > - mb(); > + /* As recommended by 7.3.77 of ARM IHI 0064D */ > + dsb(sy);
Here the old code should be right, mb() is the same thing with dsb(sy).
So we don't need to change at here?
Correct - on arm64 there is no difference between mb and dsb(sy) so no functional change on this hunk.
In repsonse to Suzuki's feedback on this patch, I've updated the commit message to describe why I've made this change, as follows: "On armv8 the mb macro is defined as dsb(sy) - Given that the etm4x is only used on armv8 let's directly use dsb(sy) instead of mb(). This removes some ambiguity and makes it easier to correlate the code with the TRM."
Does that make sense?
On reason for preferring to use mb() rather than dsb(sy) is for compatibility cross different architectures (armv7, armv8, and so on ...). Seems to me mb() is a general API and transparent for architecture's difference.
dsb(sy) is quite dependent on specific Arm architecture, e.g. some old Arm architecures might don't support dsb(sy); and we are not sure later it will change for new architectures.
Yes but please note that the KConfig for this driver depends on ARM64.
Understood your point.
I am a bit suspect it's right thing to always set dependency on ARM64 for ETMv4 driver. The reason is Armv8 CPU can also run with aarch32 mode in EL1.
If we let ETMv4 driver to support both aarch32 and aarch64, then we will see dsb(sy) might break building for some old Arm arches.
If we add support for ETMv4 on aarch32, I would recommend adding a "dsb" explicitly for aarch32 to make sure, it doesn't default to something else that the mb() may cover up as.
For aarch32, mb() should work well with below definition:
#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_HEAVY_MB #define __arm_heavy_mb(x...) do { dsb(x); arm_heavy_mb(); } while (0) #else #define __arm_heavy_mb(x...) dsb(x) #endif
#if defined(CONFIG_ARM_DMA_MEM_BUFFERABLE) || defined(CONFIG_SMP) #define mb() __arm_heavy_mb() #else #define mb() barrier() #endif
There is no point in creating another level of indirection when the architecture is clear about it and the ETMv4 supporting architectures must implement "dsb". Had this been in a generic code, I would be happy to retain mb(). But this is specific to the ETMv4 driver and we know that dsb must be there.
Okay, I understand the purpose for more explict barrier in the code; this would be fine for me.
Thanks, Leo Yan
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Andrew Murray -
Leo Yan -
Suzuki K Poulose