RE: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: at91: flush the L2 cache before entering cpu idle

[Wenyou.Yang]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell King - ARM Linux [mailto:linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 2017å1æ11æ 19:18
> To: Jean-Jacques Hiblot <jjhiblot@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Wenyou Yang - A41535 <Wenyou.Yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Alexandre Belloni
> <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>;
> devicetree <devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Nicolas Ferre
> <nicolas.ferre@xxxxxxxxx>; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; robh+dt <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-arm-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: at91: flush the L2 cache before entering cpu idle
> 
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:05:05PM +0100, Jean-Jacques Hiblot wrote:
> > 2017-01-11 9:15 GMT+01:00  <Wenyou.Yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > Hi Jean-Jacques,
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Jean-Jacques Hiblot [mailto:jjhiblot@xxxxxxxxx]
> > >> Sent: 2017å1æ11æ 0:51
> > >> To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> Cc: Wenyou Yang - A41535 <Wenyou.Yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mark Rutland
> > >> <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>; devicetree <devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> > >> Russell King <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wenyou Yang - A41535
> > >> <Wenyou.Yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Nicolas Ferre
> > >> <nicolas.ferre@xxxxxxxxx>; Linux Kernel Mailing List
> > >> <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> > >> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: at91: flush the L2 cache before
> > >> entering cpu idle
> > >>
> > >> 2017-01-10 17:18 GMT+01:00 Alexandre Belloni
> > >> <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > >> > I though a bit more about it, and I don't really like the new
> > >> > compatible string. I don't feel this should be necessary.
> > >> >
> > >> > What about the following:
> > >> >
> > >> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> > >> > index
> > >> > b4332b727e9c..0333aca63e44 100644
> > >> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> > >> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> > >> > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ extern void at91_pinctrl_gpio_resume(void);
> > >> > static struct {
> > >> >         unsigned long uhp_udp_mask;
> > >> >         int memctrl;
> > >> > +       bool has_l2_cache;
> > >> >  } at91_pm_data;
> > >> >
> > >> >  void __iomem *at91_ramc_base[2]; @@ -267,6 +268,11 @@ static
> > >> > void at91_ddr_standby(void)
> > >> >         u32 lpr0, lpr1 = 0;
> > >> >         u32 saved_lpr0, saved_lpr1 = 0;
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> > +       if (at91_pm_data.has_l2_cache) {
> > >> > +               flush_cache_all();
> > >> what is the point of calling flush_cache_all() here ? Do we really
> > >> care that dirty data in L1 is written to DDR ? I may be missing
> > >> something but to me it's just extra latency.
> > >
> > > Are you mean use outer_flush_all() to flush all cache lines in the outer cache
> only?
> >
> > Yes that's what I meant. You see, you don't flush the cache for
> > sama5d3 so it shouldn't be required either for sam5d4. You should be
> > able to test it quickly and see if L1 flush is indeed required by
> > replacing  flush_cache_all() with outer_flush_all(). BTW is highly
> > probable that L2 cache flush is done in outer_disable() so calling
> > outer_flush_all() is probably no required.
> 
> Please don't.  Read the comments in the code, and understand the APIs that
> you're suggesting people use _before_ making the suggestion:
> 
> /**
>  * outer_flush_all - clean and invalidate all cache lines in the outer cache
>  *
>  * Note: depending on implementation, this may not be atomic - it must
>  * only be called with interrupts disabled and no other active outer
>  * cache masters.
>  *
>  * It is intended that this function is only used by implementations
>  * needing to override the outer_cache.disable() method due to security.
>  * (Some implementations perform this as a clean followed by an invalidate.)  */
> 
> So, outer_flush_all() should not be called except from L2 cache code
> implementing the outer_disable() function - it's not intended for platforms to use.
> 
> There are, however, sadly three users of outer_flush_all() which have crept in
> through arm-soc, that should be outer_disable() instead.

Here, outer_flush_all() should not be called, calling outer_disable() is enough. Is it right?

In the implementation of l2c_disable(void) of in mm/cache-l2x0.c, the outer_cache.flush_all() is called.

> 
> --
> RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
> FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
> according to speedtest.net.


Best Regards,
Wenyou Yang