On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:10 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2021 01:26:51 PST (-0800), Atish Patra wrote:
> SMP_CACHE_BYTES/L1_CACHE_BYTES should be defined as 32 instead of
> 64 for RV32. Otherwise, there will be hole of 32 bytes with each memblock
> allocation if it is requested to be aligned with SMP_CACHE_BYTES.
>
> Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/riscv/include/asm/cache.h | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/cache.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/cache.h
> index 9b58b104559e..c9c669ea2fe6 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/cache.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/cache.h
> @@ -7,7 +7,11 @@
> #ifndef _ASM_RISCV_CACHE_H
> #define _ASM_RISCV_CACHE_H
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> #define L1_CACHE_SHIFT 6
> +#else
> +#define L1_CACHE_SHIFT 5
> +#endif
>
> #define L1_CACHE_BYTES (1 << L1_CACHE_SHIFT)
Should we not instead just
#define SMP_CACHE_BYTES L1_CACHE_BYTES
like a handful of architectures do?
The generic code already defines it that way in include/linux/cache.h
The cache size is sort of fake here, as we don't have any non-coherent
mechanisms, but IIRC we wrote somewhere that it's recommended to have 64-byte
cache lines in RISC-V implementations as software may assume that for
performance reasons. Not really a strong reason, but I'd prefer to just make
these match.
If it is documented somewhere in the kernel, we should update that. I
think SMP_CACHE_BYTES being 64
actually degrades the performance as there will be a fragmented memory
blocks with 32 bit bytes gap wherever
SMP_CACHE_BYTES is used as an alignment requirement.
In addition to that, Geert Uytterhoeven mentioned some panic on vex32
without this patch.
I didn't see anything in Qemu though.
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv