On 16/01/2017 20:33, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 01/16/2017 08:16 PM, Jean-Jacques Hiblot wrote:
On 16/01/2017 17:00, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 01/16/2017 02:29 PM, Jean-Jacques Hiblot wrote:
Tom, Marek
Hi,
At the moment, whenever an unaligned address is used in cache operations (invalidate_dcache_range, or flush_dcache_range), the whole request is discarded for am926ejs. for armV7 or armV8 only the aligned part is maintained. This is probably what is causing the bug addressed in 8133f43d1cd. There are a lot of unaligned buffers used in DMA operations and for all of them, we're possibly handling the cached partially or not at all. I've seen this when using the environment from a file stored in a FAT partition. commit 8133f43d1cd addresses this by using a bounce buffer at the FAT level but it's only one of many cases.
I think we can do better with unaligned cache operations:
- flush (writeback + invalidate): Suppose we use address p which is
unaligned, flush_dcache_range() can do the writeback+invalidate on the whole range [p & ~(line_sz - 1); p + length | (line_sz - 1)]. There should no problem with that since writeback can happen at any point in time.
- invalidation
It is a bit trickier. here is a pseudo-code: invalidate_dcache_range(p,length) { write_back_invalidate(first line) write_back_invalidate(last line) invalidate(all other lines) }
Here again this should work fine IF invalidate_dcache_range() is called BEFORE the DMA operation (again the writeback can happen at time so it's valid do it here). Calling it only AFTER the operation, may corrupt the data written by the DMA with old data from CPU. This how I used to handle unaligned buffers in some other projects.
There is however one loophole: a data sitting in the first or the last line is accessed before the memory is updated by the DMA, then the first/line will be corrupted. But it's not highly probable as this data would have to be used in parallel of the DMA (interrupt handling, SMP?, dma mgt related variable). So it's not perfect but it would still be better than we have today.
Or just fix all the code which complains about unaligned buffers, done. That's the way to go without all the complications above.
It's not that complex, but it's not perfect. We would need to keep the same warning as we have now, but it would make it work in more cases.
The warning is there for that exact reason -- to inform you something's wrong.
Tracking every possible unaligned buffer that gets invalidated is not a trivial job. Most of the time the buffer is allocated in a upper layer and passed down to a driver via layers like network stack, block layer etc.And in many cases, the warning will come and go depending on how the variable aligned on the stack or the heap.
I didn't observe this much in fact. I usually see the buffers coming it aligned or being allocated in drivers. Also, I think that's why the RC cycle is there, so we can test the next release and fix these issues.
It's not commonly seen but I came across it some times.
Here are two examples:
Network: U-Boot 2016.09-rc1-00087-gd40ff0a (Jul 27 2016 - 10:04:33 -0500) CPU : DRA752-HS ES2.0 Model: TI DRA742 [...] Booting from network ... cpsw Waiting for PHY auto negotiation to complete.... done link up on port 0, speed 1000, full duplex BOOTP broadcast 1 CACHE: Misaligned operation at range [dffecb40, dffecc96] CACHE: Misaligned operation at range [dffed140, dffed17e] BOOTP broadcast 2 [...] File transfer via NFS from server 10.0.1.26; our IP address is 128.247.83.128; sending through gateway 128.247.82.1 [...] Load address: 0x82000000 Loading: CACHE: Misaligned operation at range [dffebfc0, dffebfea]
FAT: it has been fixed recently by using a bounce buffer in FAT code by "8133f43d1cd fs/fat/fat_write: Fix buffer alignments". I've also seen it a few years back on PowerPC platforms when accessing a USB storage.
I'm sure that we could find more examples. I don't mean that they shouldn't be fixed, simply that we could still make things work in most cases at a low cost. The modifications I proposed do not change the behaviour of the code for aligned buffers, it just make it much more likely that it would work with unaligned buffers. I fail to see the reason why this wouldn't be a good thing.
BTW the L2 uniphier cache implements this for flush and invalidation, and some architectures (pxa, blackfin, openrisc, etc.) do the flush() this way too.
Jean-Jacques