[PATCH 1/1] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: add support for BBML
Robin Murphy
robin.murphy at arm.com
Fri Jan 22 08:00:44 EST 2021
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.
Robin.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list