lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] arm64: Add support for new control bits CTR_EL0.DIC and CTR_EL0.IDC
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 07:10:34AM -0600, Shanker Donthineni wrote:
> On 02/21/2018 05:12 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > However, my worry is that in an implementation with DIC set, we also
> > skip the DSB/ISB sequence in the invalidate_icache_by_line macro. For
> > example, in an implementation with transparent PoU, we could have:
> >
> > str <some instr>, [addr]
> > // no cache maintenance or barrier
> > br <addr>
> >
>
> Thanks for pointing out the missing barriers. I think it make sense to follow
> the existing barrier semantics in order to avoid the unknown things.
>
> > Is an ISB required between the instruction store and execution? I would
> > say yes but maybe Will has a better opinion here.
> >
> Agree, an ISB is required especially for self-modifying code. I'll include in v3 patch.

I'd have thought you'd need a DSB too, before the ISB.

Will

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-21 14:22    [W:0.041 / U:0.796 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site