[Freedreno] [PATCH 0/3] iommu/drm/msm: Allow non-coherent masters to use system cache

[Will Deacon]

On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 09:57:08AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 7:56 AM Will Deacon <will at kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 06:36:04PM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 8:14 AM Will Deacon <will at kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 08:08:07AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 3:55 AM Will Deacon <will at kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 10:08:22AM +0530, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2021-07-28 19:30, Georgi Djakov wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 07:45:02PM +0530, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > commit ecd7274fb4cd ("iommu: Remove unused IOMMU_SYS_CACHE_ONLY flag")
> > > > > > > > > removed unused IOMMU_SYS_CACHE_ONLY prot flag and along with it went
> > > > > > > > > the memory type setting required for the non-coherent masters to use
> > > > > > > > > system cache. Now that system cache support for GPU is added, we will
> > > > > > > > > need to set the right PTE attribute for GPU buffers to be sys cached.
> > > > > > > > > Without this, the system cache lines are not allocated for GPU.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So the patches in this series introduces a new prot flag IOMMU_LLC,
> > > > > > > > > renames IO_PGTABLE_QUIRK_ARM_OUTER_WBWA to IO_PGTABLE_QUIRK_PTW_LLC
> > > > > > > > > and makes GPU the user of this protection flag.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you for the patchset! Are you planning to refresh it, as it does
> > > > > > > > not apply anymore?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was waiting on Will's reply [1]. If there are no changes needed, then
> > > > > > > I can repost the patch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I still think you need to handle the mismatched alias, no? You're adding
> > > > > > a new memory type to the SMMU which doesn't exist on the CPU side. That
> > > > > > can't be right.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Just curious, and maybe this is a dumb question, but what is your
> > > > > concern about mismatched aliases?  I mean the cache hierarchy on the
> > > > > GPU device side (anything beyond the LLC) is pretty different and
> > > > > doesn't really care about the smmu pgtable attributes..
> > > >
> > > > If the CPU accesses a shared buffer with different attributes to those which
> > > > the device is using then you fall into the "mismatched memory attributes"
> > > > part of the Arm architecture. It's reasonably unforgiving (you should go and
> > > > read it) and in some cases can apply to speculative accesses as well, but
> > > > the end result is typically loss of coherency.
> > >
> > > Ok, I might have a few other sections to read first to decipher the
> > > terminology..
> > >
> > > But my understanding of LLC is that it looks just like system memory
> > > to the CPU and GPU (I think that would make it "the point of
> > > coherence" between the GPU and CPU?)  If that is true, shouldn't it be
> > > invisible from the point of view of different CPU mapping options?
> >
> > You could certainly build a system where mismatched attributes don't cause
> > loss of coherence, but as it's not guaranteed by the architecture and the
> > changes proposed here affect APIs which are exposed across SoCs, then I
> > don't think it helps much.
> >
> 
> Hmm, the description of the new mapping flag is that it applies only
> to transparent outer level cache:
> 
> +/*
> + * Non-coherent masters can use this page protection flag to set cacheable
> + * memory attributes for only a transparent outer level of cache, also known as
> + * the last-level or system cache.
> + */
> +#define IOMMU_LLC      (1 << 6)
> 
> But I suppose we could call it instead IOMMU_QCOM_LLC or something
> like that to make it more clear that it is not necessarily something
> that would work with a different outer level cache implementation?

... or we could just deal with the problem so that other people can reuse
the code. I haven't really understood the reluctance to solve this properly.

Am I missing some reason this isn't solvable?

Will