Re: [RFC PATCH v4 3/6] arm64: Add level-hinted TLB invalidation helper to tlbi_user

[Zhenyu Ye]

Hi Marc,

On 2020/3/24 22:19, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 21:45:31 +0800
> Zhenyu Ye <yezhenyu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Add a level-hinted parameter to __tlbi_user, which only gets used
>> if ARMv8.4-TTL gets detected.
>>
>> ARMv8.4-TTL provides the TTL field in tlbi instruction to indicate
>> the level of translation table walk holding the leaf entry for the
>> address that is being invalidated.
>>
>> This patch set the default level value to 0.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhenyu Ye <yezhenyu2@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
>> index a3f70778a325..d141c080e494 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
>> @@ -89,6 +89,36 @@
>>  		__tlbi(op,  arg);					\
>>  	} while(0)
>>  
>> +#define __tlbi_user_level(op, addr, level)				\
>> +	do {								\
>> +		u64 arg = addr;						\
>> +									\
>> +		if (!arm64_kernel_unmapped_at_el0())			\
>> +			break;						\
>> +									\
>> +		if (cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_ARMv8_4_TTL) &&	\
>> +		    level) {						\
>> +			u64 ttl = level;				\
>> +									\
>> +			switch (PAGE_SIZE) {				\
>> +			case SZ_4K:					\
>> +				ttl |= 1 << 2;				\
>> +				break;					\
>> +			case SZ_16K:					\
>> +				ttl |= 2 << 2;				\
>> +				break;					\
>> +			case SZ_64K:					\
>> +				ttl |= 3 << 2;				\
>> +				break;					\
>> +			}						\
>> +									\
>> +			arg &= ~TLBI_TTL_MASK;				\
>> +			arg |= FIELD_PREP(TLBI_TTL_MASK, ttl);		\
>> +		}							\
>> +									\
>> +		__tlbi(op,  (arg) | USER_ASID_FLAG);
>> 	\
>> +	} while (0)
>> +
> 
> Isn't this just:
> 
> define __tlbi_user_level(op, addr, level)			\
> 	do {							\
> 		if (!arm64_kernel_unmapped_at_el0())		\
> 			break;					\
> 								\
> 		__tlbi_level(op, addr | USER_ASID_FLAG, level);	\
> 	} while (0)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	M.
> 

Yeah, your code is more clear!  I will take it in next version. ;-)

Thanks,
zhenyu