Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] riscv: Add DMA_COHERENT support

[Guo Ren]

On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:47 PM Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Guo Ren <guoren@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: 07 June 2021 09:52
> > To: Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Atish Patra <atishp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Palmer Dabbelt
> > <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx>; anup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; drew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>; wefu@xxxxxxxxxx; lazyparser@xxxxxxxxx;
> > linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-sunxi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; guoren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] riscv: Add DMA_COHERENT support
> >
> > Hi Anup,
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 11:38 AM Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Guo Ren <guoren@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: 06 June 2021 22:42
> > > > To: Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@xxxxxxx>; Atish Patra
> > > > <atishp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx>; anup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > drew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>;
> > > > wefu@xxxxxxxxxx; lazyparser@xxxxxxxxx;
> > > > linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- sunxi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > guoren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] riscv: Add DMA_COHERENT support
> > > >
> > > > Hi Anup and Atish,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 2:00 PM Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@xxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Sent: 03 June 2021 09:43
> > > > > > To: guoren@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > Cc: anup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; drew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Christoph Hellwig
> > > > > > <hch@xxxxxx>; Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@xxxxxxx>;
> > wefu@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > > > lazyparser@xxxxxxxxx; linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > > > > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > > > > > sunxi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; guoren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Paul Walmsley
> > > > > > <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] riscv: Add DMA_COHERENT support
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 29 May 2021 17:30:18 PDT (-0700), Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, 21 May 2021 17:36:08 PDT (-0700), guoren@xxxxxxxxxx
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 3:15 PM Anup Patel
> > > > > > >> <anup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 12:24 PM Drew Fustini
> > > > > > <drew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>> > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 08:06:17AM +0200, Christoph
> > > > > > >>> > Hellwig
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>> > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 02:05:00PM +0800, Guo Ren
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >>> > > > Since the existing RISC-V ISA cannot solve this
> > > > > > >>> > > > problem, it is better to provide some configuration
> > > > > > >>> > > > for the SOC vendor to
> > > > > > customize.
> > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >>> > > We've been talking about this problem for close to five years.
> > > > > > >>> > > So no, if you don't manage to get the feature into the
> > > > > > >>> > > ISA it can't be supported.
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>> > Isn't it a good goal for Linux to support the capabilities
> > > > > > >>> > present in the SoC that a currently being fab'd?
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>> > I believe the CMO group only started last year [1] so the
> > > > > > >>> > RV64GC SoCs that are going into mass production this year
> > > > > > >>> > would not have had the opporuntiy of utilizing any RISC-V
> > > > > > >>> > ISA extension for handling cache management.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> The current Linux RISC-V policy is to only accept patches
> > > > > > >>> for frozen or ratified ISA specs.
> > > > > > >>> (Refer, Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst)
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> This means even if emulate CMO instructions in OpenSBI, the
> > > > > > >>> Linux patches won't be taken by Palmer because CMO
> > > > > > >>> specification is still in draft stage.
> > > > > > >> Before CMO specification release, could we use a sbi_ecall to
> > > > > > >> solve the current problem? This is not against the
> > > > > > >> specification, when CMO is ready we could let users choose to
> > > > > > >> use the new CMO in
> > > > Linux.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> From a tech view, CMO trap emulation is the same as sbi_ecall.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Also, we all know how much time it takes for RISCV
> > > > > > >>> international to freeze some spec. Judging by that we are
> > > > > > >>> looking at another
> > > > > > >>> 3-4 years at minimum.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry for being slow here, this thread got buried.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've been trying to work with a handful of folks at the RISC-V
> > > > > > > foundation to try and get a subset of the various
> > > > > > > in-development specifications (some simple CMOs, something
> > > > > > > about non-caching in the page tables, and some way to prevent
> > > > > > > speculative accesse from generating coherence traffic that will break
> > non-coherent systems).
> > > > > > > I'm not sure we can get this together quickly, but I'd prefer
> > > > > > > to at least try before we jump to taking vendor-specificed behavior
> > here.
> > > > > > > It's obviously an up-hill battle to try and get specifications
> > > > > > > through the process and I'm certainly not going to promise it
> > > > > > > will work, but I'm hoping that the impending need to avoid
> > > > > > > forking the ISA will be sufficient to get people behind
> > > > > > > producing some specifications in a timely
> > > > > > fashion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I wasn't aware than this chip had non-coherent devices until I
> > > > > > > saw this thread, so we'd been mostly focused on the Beagle V chip.
> > > > > > > That was in a sense an easier problem because the SiFive IP in
> > > > > > > it was never designed to have non-coherent devices so we'd
> > > > > > > have to make anything work via a series of slow workarounds,
> > > > > > > which would make emulating the eventually standardized
> > > > > > > behavior reasonable in terms of performance (ie, everything
> > > > > > > would be super slow so who really
> > > > cares).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think relying on some sort of SBI call for the CMOs
> > > > > > > whould be such a performance hit that it would prevent these
> > > > > > > systems from being viable, but assuming you have reasonable
> > > > > > > performance on your non-cached accesses then that's probably
> > > > > > > not going to be viable to trap and emulate.  At that point it
> > > > > > > really just becomes silly to pretend that we're still making
> > > > > > > things work by emulating the eventually ratified behavior, as
> > > > > > > anyone who actually tries to use this thing to do IO would
> > > > > > > need out of tree patches.  I'm not sure exactly what the plan
> > > > > > > is for the page table bits in the specification right now, but
> > > > > > > if you can give me a pointer to some documentation then I'm
> > > > > > > happy to try and push for something
> > > > compatible.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If we can't make the process work at the foundation then I'd
> > > > > > > be strongly in favor of just biting the bullet and starting to
> > > > > > > take vendor-specific code that's been implemented in hardware
> > > > > > > and is necessarry to make things work acceptably.  That's
> > > > > > > obviously a sub-optimal solution as it'll lead to a bunch of
> > > > > > > ISA fragmentation, but at least we'll be able to keep the
> > > > > > > software stack
> > > > together.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you tell us when these will be in the hands of users?
> > > > > > > That's pretty important here, as I don't want to be blocking
> > > > > > > real users from having their hardware work.  IIRC there were
> > > > > > > some plans to distribute early boards, but it looks like the
> > > > > > > foundation got involved and I guess I lost the thread at that point.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry this is all such a headache, but hopefully we can get
> > > > > > > things sorted out.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I talked with some of the RISC-V foundation folks, we're not
> > > > > > going to have an ISA specification for the non-coherent stuff
> > > > > > any time soon.  I took a look at this code and I definately
> > > > > > don't want to take it as is, but I'm not opposed to taking
> > > > > > something that makes the
> > > > hardware work as long as it's a lot cleaner.
> > > > > > We've already got two of these non-coherent chips, I'm sure more
> > > > > > will come, and I'd rather have the extra headaches than make
> > > > > > everyone fork the software stack.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for confirming. The CMO extension is still in early stages
> > > > > so it will certainly take more time for them. After CMO extension
> > > > > is finalized, it will take some more time to have actual RISC-V
> > > > > platforms with
> > > > CMO implemented.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > After talking to Atish it looks like there's likely to be an SBI
> > > > > > extension to handle the CMOs, which should let us avoid the bulk
> > > > > > of the vendor-specific behavior in the kernel.  I know some
> > > > > > people are worried about adding to the SBI surface.  I'm worried
> > > > > > about that too, but that's way better than sticking a bunch of
> > > > > > vendor-specific instructions into the kernel.  The SBI extension
> > > > > > should make for a straight-forward cache flush implementation in
> > > > > > Linux, so let's just plan on
> > > > that getting through quickly (as has been done before).
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I agree. We can have just a single SBI call which is meant
> > > > > for DMA sync purpose only which means it will flush/invalidate
> > > > > pages from all cache levels irrespective of the cache hierarchy (i.e.
> > > > > flush/invalidate to RAM). The CMO extension might more generic
> > > > > cache operations which can target any cache level.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am already preparing a write-up for SBI DMA sync call in SBI
> > > > > spec. I will share it with you separately as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unfortunately we've yet to come up with a way to handle the
> > > > > > non-cacheable mappings without introducing a degree of
> > > > > > vendor-specific behavior or seriously impacting performance
> > > > > > (mark them as not valid and deal with them in the trap handler).
> > > > > > I'm not really sure it counts as supporting the hardware if it's
> > > > > > massively slow, so that really leaves us with vendor-specific
> > > > > > mappings as the only
> > > > option to make these chips work.
> > > > >
> > > > > A RISC-V platform can have non-cacheable mappings is following
> > > > > possible
> > > > > ways:
> > > > > 1) Fixed physical address range as non-cacheable using PMAs
> > > > > 2) Custom page table attributes
> > > > > 3) Svpmbt extension being defined by RVI
> > > > >
> > > > > Atish and me both think it is possible to have RISC-V specific DMA
> > > > > ops implementation which can handle all above case. Atish is
> > > > > already working on DMA ops implementation for RISC-V.
> > > > Not only DMA ops, but also icache_sync & __vdso_icache_sync. Please
> > > > have a look at:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/1622970249-50770-12-git-send-ema
> > > > il-
> > > > guoren@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
> > >
> > > The icache_sync and __vdso_icache_sync will have to be addressed
> > > differently. The SBI DMA sync extension cannot address this.
> > Agree
> >
> > >
> > > It seems Allwinner D1 have more non-standard stuff:
> > > 1) Custom PTE bits for IO-coherent access
> > > 2) Custom data cache flush/invalidate for DMA sync
> > > 3) Custom icache flush/invalidate
> > Yes, but 3) is a performance optimization, not critical for running.
> >
> > >
> > > Other hand, BeagleV has only two problems:
> > > 1) Custom physical address range for IO-coherent access
> > > 2) Custom L2 cache flush/invalidate for DMA sync
> > https://github.com/starfive-
> > tech/linux/commit/d4c4044c08134dca8e5eaaeb6d3faf97dc453b6d
> >
> > Currently, they still use DMA sync with DMA descriptor, are you sure they
> > have minor memory physical address.
> >
> > >
> > > From above #2, can be solved by SBI DMA sync call and Linux DMA ops
> > > for both BeagleV and Allwinner D1
> > >
> > > On BeagleV, issue #1 can be solved using "dma-ranges".
> > >
> > > On Allwinner D1, issues #1 and #3 need to be addressed separately.
> > >
> > > I think supporting BeagleV in upstream Linux is relatively easy
> > > compared to Allwinner D1.
> > >
> > > @Guo, please check if you can reserve dedicated physical address range
> > > for IO-coherent access (just like BeagleV). If yes, then we can tackle
> > > issue #1 for Allwinner
> > > D1 using "dma-ranges" DT property.
> > There is no dedicated physical address range for IO-coherent access in D1. But
> > the solution you mentioned couldn't solve all requirements.
> > Only one mirror physical address range is not enough, we need at least three
> > (Normal, DMA desc, frame buffer).
>
> How many non-coherent devices you really have?
>
> I am guess lot of critical devices on Allwinner D1 are not coherent with CPU.
> The problem for Allwinner D1 is even worst than I thought. If such critical
> high through-put devices are not cache coherent with CPU then I am
> speechless about Allwinner D1 situation.
Allwinner D1 is a cost-down product and there is no cache coherent
device at all. Cache coherent interconnect will increase the chip
design cost and the performance is enough in their scenario.

So that why we need Srong Order + noncache & Weak Order + noncache to
optimization.

>From T-HEAD side we could privide two kinds of solution of DMA coherent.
 - Let SOC vendor update coherent interconnect, and our CPU could
support coherent protocal.
 - Let SOC vendor connect their DMA device with our CPU LL cache
coherent interface.

But we can't force them do that. They want how my origin soc works
then make it work with your RV core. They know trade off coherency or
non-coherency in their busisness scenario.

>
> > And that will triple the memory physical address which can't be accepted by
> > our users from the hardware design cost view.
> >
> >  "dma-ranges" DT property is a big early MIPS smell. ARM SOC users can't
> > accept it. (They just say replace the CPU, but don't touch anything other.)
> >
> > PTE attributes are the non-coherent solution for many years. MIPS also
> > follows that now:
> > ref arch/mips/include/asm/pgtable-bits.h &
> > arch/mips/include/asm/pgtable.h
>
> RISC-V is in the process of standardizing Svpmbt extension.
>
> Unfortunately, the higher order bits which your implementation uses is
> not for SoC vendor use as-per the RISC-V privilege spec.
For a while, I had placed my hopes on C-bit, but my fantasy was
disillusioned. -_-!

>
> >
> > #ifndef _CACHE_CACHABLE_NO_WA
> > #define _CACHE_CACHABLE_NO_WA           (0<<_CACHE_SHIFT)
> > #endif
> > #ifndef _CACHE_CACHABLE_WA
> > #define _CACHE_CACHABLE_WA              (1<<_CACHE_SHIFT)
> > #endif
> > #ifndef _CACHE_UNCACHED
> > #define _CACHE_UNCACHED                 (2<<_CACHE_SHIFT)
> > #endif
> > #ifndef _CACHE_CACHABLE_NONCOHERENT
> > #define _CACHE_CACHABLE_NONCOHERENT     (3<<_CACHE_SHIFT)
> > #endif
> > #ifndef _CACHE_CACHABLE_CE
> > #define _CACHE_CACHABLE_CE              (4<<_CACHE_SHIFT)
> > #endif
> > #ifndef _CACHE_CACHABLE_COW
> > #define _CACHE_CACHABLE_COW             (5<<_CACHE_SHIFT)
> > #endif
> > #ifndef _CACHE_CACHABLE_CUW
> > #define _CACHE_CACHABLE_CUW             (6<<_CACHE_SHIFT)
> > #endif
> > #ifndef _CACHE_UNCACHED_ACCELERATED
> > #define _CACHE_UNCACHED_ACCELERATED     (7<<_CACHE_SHIFT)
> >
> > We can't force our users to double/triplicate their physical memory regions.
>
> We are trying to find a workable solution here so that we don't have
> to deal with custom PTE attributes which are reserved for RISC-V priv
> specification only.
Thank you for your hard work in this regard, sincerely.

>
> Regards,
> Anup
>
> >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Anup
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This implementation, which adds some Kconfig entries that
> > > > > > control page table bits, definately isn't suitable for upstream.
> > > > > > Allowing users to set arbitrary page table bits will eventually
> > > > > > conflict with the standard, and is just going to be a mess.
> > > > > > It'll also lead to kernels that are only compatible with
> > > > > > specific designs, which we're trying very hard to avoid.  At a
> > > > > > bare minimum we'll need some way to detect systems with these
> > > > > > page table bits before setting them, and some description of
> > > > > > what the bits actually do so we can reason about
> > > > them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, vendor specific Kconfig options are strict NO NO. We can't
> > > > > give-up the goal of unified kernel image for all platforms.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Anup
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best Regards
> > > >  Guo Ren
> > > >
> > > > ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards
> >  Guo Ren
> >
> > ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/



-- 
Best Regards
 Guo Ren

ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/