[PATCH 4/4] iommu/arm-smmu: Use per-context TLB sync as appropriate

[Will Deacon]

Hi Robin,

This mostly looks great, but I have a couple of minor comments below.

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 06:09:07PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> TLB synchronisation typically involves the SMMU blocking all incoming
> transactions until the TLBs report completion of all outstanding
> operations. In the common SMMUv2 configuration of a single distributed
> SMMU serving multiple peripherals, that means that a single unmap
> request has the potential to bring the hammer down on the entire system
> if synchronised globally. Since stage 1 contexts, and stage 2 contexts
> under SMMUv2, offer local sync operations, let's make use of those
> wherever we can in the hope of minimising global disruption.
> 
> To that end, rather than add any more branches to the already unwieldy
> monolithic TLB maintenance ops, break them up into smaller, neater,
> functions which we can then mix and match as appropriate.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy at arm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 156 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>  1 file changed, 100 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
> index c8aafe304171..f7411109670f 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
> @@ -237,6 +237,8 @@ enum arm_smmu_s2cr_privcfg {
>  #define ARM_SMMU_CB_S1_TLBIVAL		0x620
>  #define ARM_SMMU_CB_S2_TLBIIPAS2	0x630
>  #define ARM_SMMU_CB_S2_TLBIIPAS2L	0x638
> +#define ARM_SMMU_CB_TLBSYNC		0x7f0
> +#define ARM_SMMU_CB_TLBSTATUS		0x7f4
>  #define ARM_SMMU_CB_ATS1PR		0x800
>  #define ARM_SMMU_CB_ATSR		0x8f0
>  
> @@ -569,14 +571,13 @@ static void __arm_smmu_free_bitmap(unsigned long *map, int idx)
>  }
>  
>  /* Wait for any pending TLB invalidations to complete */
> -static void __arm_smmu_tlb_sync(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> +static void __arm_smmu_tlb_sync(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
> +				void __iomem *sync, void __iomem *status)

Given that you take the arm_smmu_device anyway, I think I'd prefer just
passing the offsets for sync and status and avoiding the additions
in the caller (a bit like your other patch in this series ;).

>  static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_nosync(unsigned long iova, size_t size,
> @@ -617,48 +638,66 @@ static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_nosync(unsigned long iova, size_t size,
>  {
>  	struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = cookie;
>  	struct arm_smmu_cfg *cfg = &smmu_domain->cfg;
> -	struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = smmu_domain->smmu;
>  	bool stage1 = cfg->cbar != CBAR_TYPE_S2_TRANS;
> -	void __iomem *reg;
> +	void __iomem *reg = ARM_SMMU_CB(smmu_domain->smmu, cfg->cbndx);
> +	size_t step;
>  
> -	if (stage1) {
> -		reg = ARM_SMMU_CB(smmu, cfg->cbndx);
> -		reg += leaf ? ARM_SMMU_CB_S1_TLBIVAL : ARM_SMMU_CB_S1_TLBIVA;
> -
> -		if (cfg->fmt != ARM_SMMU_CTX_FMT_AARCH64) {
> -			iova &= ~12UL;
> -			iova |= cfg->asid;
> -			do {
> -				writel_relaxed(iova, reg);
> -				iova += granule;
> -			} while (size -= granule);
> -		} else {
> -			iova >>= 12;
> -			iova |= (u64)cfg->asid << 48;
> -			do {
> -				writeq_relaxed(iova, reg);
> -				iova += granule >> 12;
> -			} while (size -= granule);
> -		}
> -	} else if (smmu->version == ARM_SMMU_V2) {
> -		reg = ARM_SMMU_CB(smmu, cfg->cbndx);
> +	if (stage1)
> +		reg += leaf ? ARM_SMMU_CB_S1_TLBIVAL :
> +			      ARM_SMMU_CB_S1_TLBIVA;
> +	else
>  		reg += leaf ? ARM_SMMU_CB_S2_TLBIIPAS2L :
>  			      ARM_SMMU_CB_S2_TLBIIPAS2;
> -		iova >>= 12;
> -		do {
> -			smmu_write_atomic_lq(iova, reg);
> -			iova += granule >> 12;
> -		} while (size -= granule);
> +
> +	if (stage1 && cfg->fmt != ARM_SMMU_CTX_FMT_AARCH64) {
> +		iova &= ~12UL;
> +		iova |= cfg->asid;
> +		step = granule;
>  	} else {
> -		reg = ARM_SMMU_GR0(smmu) + ARM_SMMU_GR0_TLBIVMID;
> -		writel_relaxed(cfg->vmid, reg);
> +		iova >>= 12;
> +		step = granule >> 12;
> +		if (stage1)
> +			iova |= (u64)cfg->asid << 48;
>  	}
> +
> +	do {
> +		smmu_write_atomic_lq(iova, reg);
> +		iova += step;
> +	} while (size -= granule);

There seems to be a lot of refactoring going on here, but I'm not entirely
comfortable with the unconditional move to smmu_write_atomic_lq. Given the
way in which arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_nosync is now called (i.e. only for
stage-1 or SMMUv2 stage-2), then I think you just need to delete the final
else clause in the current code and you're done.

Will