[PATCH v6 04/25] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Move TLB range invalidation into common code

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 11:45:51AM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote:
> On Sat, May 09, 2026 at 08:29:31PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, May 07, 2026 at 09:40:00AM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote:
> > > But that doesn’t solve the problem, which is: At some point, whether
> > > eagerly from the page table code, through gather sync or a fancy
> > > invalidation array, the driver will need to populate a range
> > > invalidation command (tg, ttl, scale...) and this logic is better
> > > shared with the main driver which is this patch does.
> > 
> > My point is this patch doesn't share enough. If you do need to issue
> > invalidations then share everything below the top level tlbi entry
> > point and don't try to make a pkvm version of the entire logic just by
> > ripping out the range logic.
> > 
> > There is no reason for pkvm to need a different algorithm
> > here. Especially when you get to supporting ATS and multiple devices
> > and smmus you may as well just use the whole thing.
> > 
> > Which is why I suggested to copy the entire call chain into a shared
> > file
> 
> Agh, actually this seires doesn't deal with ATS, which I think is
> wrong, propably we have to issue CMDQ_OP_ATC_INV for the whole
> space on every S2 invalidation which has to be done per-SID and
> as it can't be done by VMID :/ or just hide ATS support from host for
> now, I will look into more for v7.

Hiding from the host is a fine solution to start with.

> But anyway, we don’t have to share any logic, the kernel driver
> is quite complicated as it is designed for a different use-case.
> Doing that makes the hypervisor unnecessary complicated and
> oversharing this logic makes the kernel driver less maintainable IMO.

invalidation is complicated, you should not try to open code your own
version. You really cannot make it any simpler than what is in the
driver, just use the code it is already decently modular.

Jason