[PATCH 1/2] irqchip/gicv3-its: Support share device ID

[Varun Sethi]

Hi Will,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Will Deacon [mailto:will.deacon at arm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 10:37 PM
> To: Yoder Stuart-B08248
> Cc: Sethi Varun-B16395; Lian Minghuan-B31939; linux-pci at vger.kernel.org;
> Arnd Bergmann; Hu Mingkai-B21284; Zang Roy-R61911; Bjorn Helgaas; Wood
> Scott-B07421; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] irqchip/gicv3-its: Support share device ID
> 
> Hi Stuart,
> 
> First of, thanks for taking the time to explain this in more detail.
> Comments inline.
> 
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 03:19:08PM +0100, Stuart Yoder wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 02:18:13PM +0100, Varun Sethi wrote:
> > > > Yes, deviceid=stream id (i.e. ICID + other bits). I am not sure if
> > > > TBU ID would also be forwarded as a part of stream id to GIC. My
> > > > understanding is that TBU ID is forwarded (as a part of the stream
> > > > ID) to the TCU in case of a TBU translation miss. In case of the
> > > > LS2085 PCIe controller you would have to setup the PCIe device ID
> > > > to stream ID translation table. We may have to restrict the number
> > > > of entries based on the available number of contexts.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, I'm having a really hard time parsing this thread
> > > (some parts of it simply don't make sense; others use
> > > non-architectural terms and overall I don't get a feeling for the problem).
> > >
> > > Please could you explain your system design step by step so that I
> > > can understand (a) what you've built and (b) why the current design
> > > of Linux is causing you problems?
> > >
> > > Sorry if I'm just being thick, but it's important that we get this right.
> >
> > I'll try to summarize some key points about the system...
> >
> > System is using a single SMMU-500 (1 TCU, 6 TBUs) and GICv3-ITS.
> > There are PCI, fsl-mc, and platform devices that do DMA.  Devices on
> > the PCI and fsl-mc bus generate message interrupts.
> 
> Ah cool, so you have multiple buses sharing a single SMMU? That's going to
> necessitate some ID remapping in the device-tree. Perhaps you could
> comment on Mark Rutland's proposal if it does/doesn't work for you:
> 
>   http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-
> March/333199.html
> 
> 
> > The flow a message interrupt would take is this:
> >
> >     --------------
> >       PCI device
> >     --------------
> >           |
> >           | pcidevid + MSI msg
> >           |
> >           V
> >     --------------
> >     PCI controller
> >       pcidevid ->
> >       streamID
> >       mapping
> >     --------------
> >           |
> >           | streamID + MSI msg
> >           |
> >           V
> >     --------------
> >         SMMU
> >     --------------
> >           |
> >           | streamID + MSI msg
> >           |
> >           V
> >     --------------
> >        CCN-504 (Dickens)
> >     --------------
> >           |
> >           | streamID + MSI msg
> >           |
> >           V
> 
> The streamID here as the same as the one coming out of the SMMU, right?
> (just trying to out why you have the CCN-504 in the picture).
> 
> >     --------------
> >       GICv3 ITS    streamID == ITS deviceID
> >     --------------
> >
> > So, the way things work (at least initially) is that each PCI device
> > maps to a single streamID, and thus each device has a separate ITT in
> > the ITS.  So, things should be cool.
> >
> > However, there is an improvement we envision as possible due to the
> > limited number of SMMU contexts (i.e. 64).  If there are
> > 64 SMMU context registers it means that there is a max of
> > 64 software contexts where things can be isolated.  But, say I have an
> > SRIOV card with 64 VFs, and I want to assign 8 of the VFs to a KVM VM.
> > Those 8 PCI devices could share the same streamID/ITS-device-ID since
> > they all share the same isolation context.
> >
> > What would be nice is at the time the 8 VFS are being added to the
> > IOMMU domain is for the pcidevid -> streamID mapping table to be
> > updated dynamically.  It simply lets us make more efficient use of the
> > limited streamIDs we have.
> >
> > I think it is this improvement that Minghuan had in mind in this
> > patch.
> 
> Ok, but in this case it should be possible to use a single context bank for all of
> the VF streamIDs by configuring the appropriate SMR, no? Wouldn't that sort
> of thing be preferable to dynamic StreamID assignment? It would certainly
> make life easier for the MSIs.
> 
Yes, that would happen when the all the VFs are attached to the same domain. But it would be an issue if we have to attach devices to different domains.

-Varun