Despite RISC-V having a direct 'fence.i' instruction available to
userspace (which we can't trap!), that's not actually viable when
running on Linux because the kernel might schedule a process on another
hart. There is no way for userspace to handle this without invoking the
kernel (as it doesn't know the thread->hart mappings), so we've defined
a RISC-V specific system call to flush the instruction cache.
This patch adds both a system call and a VDSO entry. If possible, we'd
like to avoid having the system call be considered part of the
user-facing ABI and instead restrict that to the VDSO entry -- both just
in general to avoid having additional user-visible ABI to maintain, and
because we'd prefer that users just call the VDSO entry because there
might be a better way to do this in the future (ie, one that doesn't
require entering the kernel).
Signed-off-by: Andrew Waterman <andrew@sifive.com>
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
The RISC-V ISA allows for instruction caches that are not coherent WRT
stores, even on a single hart. As a result, we need to explicitly flush
the instruction cache whenever marking a dirty page as executable in
order to preserve the correct system behavior.
Local instruction caches aren't that scary (our implementations actually
flush the cache, but RISC-V is defined to allow higher-performance
implementations to exist), but RISC-V defines no way to perform an
instruction cache shootdown. When explicitly asked to do so we can
shoot down remote instruction caches via an IPI, but this is a bit on
the slow side.
Instead of requiring an IPI to all harts whenever marking a page as
executable, we simply flush the currently running harts. In order to
maintain correct behavior, we additionally mark every other hart as
needing a deferred instruction cache which will be taken before anything
runs on it.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Waterman <andrew@sifive.com>
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
This contains all the code that directly interfaces with the RISC-V
memory model. While this code corforms to the current RISC-V ISA
specifications (user 2.2 and priv 1.10), the memory model is somewhat
underspecified in those documents. There is a working group that hopes
to produce a formal memory model by the end of the year, but my
understanding is that the basic definitions we're relying on here won't
change significantly.
Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
Andrew Waterman