[PATCH 1/1] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: add support for BBML
Leizhen (ThunderTown)
thunder.leizhen at huawei.com
Fri Jan 22 08:21:20 EST 2021
On 2021/1/22 21:00, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2021-01-22 12:51, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 11:42:30AM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>>> When changing from a set of pages/smaller blocks to a larger block for an
>>> address, the software should follow the sequence of BBML processing.
>>>
>>> When changing from a block to a set of pages/smaller blocks for an
>>> address, there's no need to use nT bit. If an address in the large block
>>> is accessed before page table switching, the TLB caches the large block
>>> mapping. After the page table is switched and before TLB invalidation
>>> finished, new access requests are still based on large block mapping.
>>> After the block or page is invalidated, the system reads the small block
>>> or page mapping from the memory; If the address in the large block is not
>>> accessed before page table switching, the TLB has no cache. After the
>>> page table is switched, a new access is initiated to read the small block
>>> or page mapping from the memory.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen at huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 2 +
>>> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h | 2 +
>>> drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++-----
>>> include/linux/io-pgtable.h | 1 +
>>> 4 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>> index e634bbe60573..14a1a11565fb 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>> @@ -1977,6 +1977,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_domain_finalise(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>>> .coherent_walk = smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_COHERENCY,
>>> .tlb = &arm_smmu_flush_ops,
>>> .iommu_dev = smmu->dev,
>>> + .bbml = smmu->bbml,
>>> };
>>> if (smmu_domain->non_strict)
>>> @@ -3291,6 +3292,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_hw_probe(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>> /* IDR3 */
>>> reg = readl_relaxed(smmu->base + ARM_SMMU_IDR3);
>>> + smmu->bbml = FIELD_GET(IDR3_BBML, reg);
>>> if (FIELD_GET(IDR3_RIL, reg))
>>> smmu->features |= ARM_SMMU_FEAT_RANGE_INV;
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h
>>> index d4b7f40ccb02..aa7eb460fa09 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h
>>> @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@
>>> #define IDR1_SIDSIZE GENMASK(5, 0)
>>> #define ARM_SMMU_IDR3 0xc
>>> +#define IDR3_BBML GENMASK(12, 11)
>>> #define IDR3_RIL (1 << 10)
>>> #define ARM_SMMU_IDR5 0x14
>>> @@ -617,6 +618,7 @@ struct arm_smmu_device {
>>> int gerr_irq;
>>> int combined_irq;
>>> + int bbml;
>>> unsigned long ias; /* IPA */
>>> unsigned long oas; /* PA */
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c b/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c
>>> index a7a9bc08dcd1..341581337ad0 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c
>>> @@ -72,6 +72,7 @@
>>> #define ARM_LPAE_PTE_NSTABLE (((arm_lpae_iopte)1) << 63)
>>> #define ARM_LPAE_PTE_XN (((arm_lpae_iopte)3) << 53)
>>> +#define ARM_LPAE_PTE_nT (((arm_lpae_iopte)1) << 16)
>>> #define ARM_LPAE_PTE_AF (((arm_lpae_iopte)1) << 10)
>>> #define ARM_LPAE_PTE_SH_NS (((arm_lpae_iopte)0) << 8)
>>> #define ARM_LPAE_PTE_SH_OS (((arm_lpae_iopte)2) << 8)
>>> @@ -255,7 +256,7 @@ static size_t __arm_lpae_unmap(struct arm_lpae_io_pgtable *data,
>>> static void __arm_lpae_init_pte(struct arm_lpae_io_pgtable *data,
>>> phys_addr_t paddr, arm_lpae_iopte prot,
>>> - int lvl, arm_lpae_iopte *ptep)
>>> + int lvl, arm_lpae_iopte *ptep, arm_lpae_iopte nT)
>>> {
>>> arm_lpae_iopte pte = prot;
>>> @@ -265,37 +266,60 @@ static void __arm_lpae_init_pte(struct arm_lpae_io_pgtable *data,
>>> pte |= ARM_LPAE_PTE_TYPE_BLOCK;
>>> pte |= paddr_to_iopte(paddr, data);
>>> + pte |= nT;
>>> __arm_lpae_set_pte(ptep, pte, &data->iop.cfg);
>>> }
>>> +static void __arm_lpae_free_pgtable(struct arm_lpae_io_pgtable *data, int lvl,
>>> + arm_lpae_iopte *ptep);
>>> static int arm_lpae_init_pte(struct arm_lpae_io_pgtable *data,
>>> unsigned long iova, phys_addr_t paddr,
>>> arm_lpae_iopte prot, int lvl,
>>> arm_lpae_iopte *ptep)
>>> {
>>> arm_lpae_iopte pte = *ptep;
>>> + struct io_pgtable_cfg *cfg = &data->iop.cfg;
>>> if (iopte_leaf(pte, lvl, data->iop.fmt)) {
>>> /* We require an unmap first */
>>> WARN_ON(!selftest_running);
>>> return -EEXIST;
>>> } else if (iopte_type(pte, lvl) == ARM_LPAE_PTE_TYPE_TABLE) {
>>> - /*
>>> - * We need to unmap and free the old table before
>>> - * overwriting it with a block entry.
>>> - */
>>> arm_lpae_iopte *tblp;
>>> + struct io_pgtable *iop = &data->iop;
>>> size_t sz = ARM_LPAE_BLOCK_SIZE(lvl, data);
>>> - tblp = ptep - ARM_LPAE_LVL_IDX(iova, lvl, data);
>>> - if (__arm_lpae_unmap(data, NULL, iova, sz, lvl, tblp) != sz) {
>>> - WARN_ON(1);
>>> - return -EINVAL;
>>> + switch (cfg->bbml) {
>>> + case 0:
>>> + /*
>>> + * We need to unmap and free the old table before
>>> + * overwriting it with a block entry.
>>> + */
>>> + tblp = ptep - ARM_LPAE_LVL_IDX(iova, lvl, data);
>>> + if (__arm_lpae_unmap(data, NULL, iova, sz, lvl, tblp) != sz) {
>>> + WARN_ON(1);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> + break;
>>> + case 1:
>>> + __arm_lpae_init_pte(data, paddr, prot, lvl, ptep, ARM_LPAE_PTE_nT);
>>> +
>>> + io_pgtable_tlb_flush_walk(iop, iova, sz, ARM_LPAE_GRANULE(data));
>>> + tblp = iopte_deref(pte, data);
>>> + __arm_lpae_free_pgtable(data, lvl + 1, tblp);
>>> + break;
>>> + case 2:
>>> + __arm_lpae_init_pte(data, paddr, prot, lvl, ptep, 0);
>>> +
>>> + io_pgtable_tlb_flush_walk(iop, iova, sz, ARM_LPAE_GRANULE(data));
>>> + tblp = iopte_deref(pte, data);
>>> + __arm_lpae_free_pgtable(data, lvl + 1, tblp);
>>> + return 0;
>>
>> Sorry, but I really don't understand what you're trying to do here. The old
>> code uses BBM for the table -> block path so we don't need anything extra
>> here. The dodgy case is when we unmap part of a block, and end up installing
>> a table via arm_lpae_split_blk_unmap(). We can't use BBM there because there
>> could be ongoing DMA to parts of the block mapping that we want to remain in
>> place.
>>
>> Are you seeing a problem in practice?
>
> Right, I was under the assumption that we could ignore BBML because we should never have a legitimate reason to split blocks. I'm certainly not keen on piling any more complexity into split_blk_unmap, because the IOMMU API clearly doesn't have a well-defined behaviour for that case anyway - some other drivers will just unmap the entire block, and IIRC there was a hint somewhere in VFIO that it might actually expect that behaviour.
I'm going home. I'll answer you two tomorrow.
>
> Robin.
>
> .
>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list