• State Accepted Answer
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 2 replies
  • Subscribers 351 subscribers
  • Views 1991 views
  • Users 0 members are here
2025 survey

We are running a survey to help us improve the experience for all of our members. If you see the survey appear, please take the time to tell us about your experience if you can.

Options
Related
How was your experience today?
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Cacheable=0 vs Shareable=1

AakashKedia22

Hi,

I have R5F core with ARMv7 architecture. I want the memory to be shared across the multiple R5F CPUs in AM2732 TI device.

I am confused what happens if -

  1. Cacheable = 1 and Shareable = 1
  2. Cacheable = 0 and Shareable = 1
  3. Cacheable = 0 and Shareable = 0
  4. Cacheable = 1 and Shareable = 0

How does the CPU distinguishes between the same ?

Best Regards,
Aakash

PS. I suppose #2 should be sharable across CPUs and #4 should be done via software coherency. But what about the others really ?

  • +1 Arm Employee Badge

    First lets take a step back:

    The Shareable attribute is how software tells the processor who accesses this location.  Setting a location as non-shared means that software is saying that either no other observer (e.g. a DMA or other processor) will access this location, or it if does that software will deal with ensuring a coherent view.  Setting a location as shared means software is saying that some other observers might access the location AND that the processor needs to ensure a coherent view of that location.

    The Cacheable attribute is software telling the processor whether is it permitted to cache a location - I know, kind of stating the obvious.  But note, it's not a command that the location MUST be cached.  Rather that it is allowed to be cached.

    Now lets apply that to the Cortex-R5F:

    • Cacheable = 0 and Shareable = x
      • From the description above, hopefully it makes sense why Shareability doesn't really matter if the location is not cacheable.  Shareability matters in working out who is responsible for maintaining a coherent view of memory.  If the location isn't cached, that's not a problem
    • Cacheable = 1 and Shareable = 0
      • This means that location can be cached and that SW is saying no other agents/observers will access that location (or if they d, it's SW's problem).  So that's easy, the processor can cache the location and not worry about maintaining coherency.
    • Cacheable = 1 and Shareable = 1
      • This time we're saying that the location is permitted to be cached - but that other observers might access the location and we want the HW to ensure a coherent view.  Ok... so what does that mean in practice?
      • For a processor such as the Cortex-A9, that means the cache coherency logic will kick in to do the necessary steps.
      • For the Cortex-R5 - it doesn't have cache coherency logic.  So we've said that the location is permitted to be cached and we want a coherent view.  The only way the R5 can then achieve a coherent view is to not cache the location.
  • 0 in reply to Martin Weidmann

    Hi ,

    So it is okay to say that if user sets the Cacheable = 1 and Shareable = 1, then Shareable will take precedence and the processor will be provided a coherent view and the location will not be allowed to be cached.

    Best Regards,
    Aakash