[PATCH] powerpc: select ARCH_HAS_MEMBARRIER_SYNC_CORE

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

----- On Jul 7, 2020, at 1:50 AM, Nicholas Piggin npiggin at gmail.com wrote:

> Excerpts from Christophe Leroy's message of July 6, 2020 7:53 pm:
>> 
>> 
>> Le 06/07/2020 à 04:18, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/exception-64s.h
>>> b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/exception-64s.h
>>> index 47bd4ea0837d..b88cb3a989b6 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/exception-64s.h
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/exception-64s.h
>>> @@ -68,6 +68,10 @@
>>>    *
>>>    * The nop instructions allow us to insert one or more instructions to flush the
>>>    * L1-D cache when returning to userspace or a guest.
>>> + *
>>> + * powerpc relies on return from interrupt/syscall being context synchronising
>>> + * (which hrfid, rfid, and rfscv are) to support ARCH_HAS_MEMBARRIER_SYNC_CORE
>>> + * without additional additional synchronisation instructions.
>> 
>> This file is dedicated to BOOK3S/64. What about other ones ?
>> 
>> On 32 bits, this is also valid as 'rfi' is also context synchronising,
>> but then why just add some comment in exception-64s.h and only there ?
> 
> Yeah you're right, I basically wanted to keep a note there just in case,
> because it's possible we would get a less synchronising return (maybe
> unlikely with meltdown) or even return from a kernel interrupt using a
> something faster (e.g., bctar if we don't use tar register in the kernel
> anywhere).
> 
> So I wonder where to add the note, entry_32.S and 64e.h as well?
> 

For 64-bit powerpc, I would be tempted to either place the comment in the header
implementing the RFI_TO_USER and RFI_TO_USER_OR_KERNEL macros or the .S files
using them, e.g. either:

arch/powerpc/include/asm/exception-64e.h
arch/powerpc/include/asm/exception-64s.h

or

arch/powerpc/kernel/exceptions-64s.S
arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S

And for 32-bit powerpc, AFAIU

arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_32.S

uses SYNC + RFI to return to user-space. RFI is defined in

arch/powerpc/include/asm/ppc_asm.h

So a comment either near the RFI define and its uses should work.

> I should actually change the comment for 64-bit because soft masked
> interrupt replay is an interesting case. I thought it was okay (because
> the IPI would cause a hard interrupt which does do the rfi) but that
> should at least be written.

Yes.

> The context synchronisation happens before
> the Linux IPI function is called, but for the purpose of membarrier I
> think that is okay (the membarrier just needs to have caused a memory
> barrier + context synchronistaion by the time it has done).

Can you point me to the code implementing this logic ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> Thanks,
> Nick

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com