[PATCH v9 6/7] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add arm_smmu_invs based arm_smmu_domain_inv_range()

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 01:01:16PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 04:03:27PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 05:10:52PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 05:05:31PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 12:11:28PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > > +	/*
> > > > > +	 * We are committed to updating the STE. Ensure the invalidation array
> > > > > +	 * is visible to concurrent map/unmap threads, and acquire any racing
> > > > > +	 * IOPTE updates.
> > > > > +	 *
> > > > > +	 *  [CPU0]                        | [CPU1]
> > > > > +	 *                                |
> > > > > +	 *  change IOPTEs and TLB flush:  |
> > > > > +	 *  arm_smmu_domain_inv_range() { | arm_smmu_install_old_domain_invs {
> > > > > +	 *    ...                         |   rcu_assign_pointer(new_invs);
> > > > > +	 *    smp_mb(); // ensure IOPTEs  |   smp_mb(); // ensure new_invs
> > > > > +	 *    ...                         |   kfree_rcu(old_invs, rcu);
> > > > > +	 *    // load invalidation array  | }
> > > > > +	 *    invs = rcu_dereference();   | arm_smmu_install_ste_for_dev {
> > > > > +	 *                                |   STE = TTB0 // read new IOPTEs
> > > > > +	 */
> > > > > +	smp_mb();
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think we need to duplicate this comment three times, you can just
> > > > refer to the first function (e.g. "See ordering comment in
> > > > arm_smmu_domain_inv_range()").
> > > > 
> > > > However, isn't the comment above misleading for this case?
> > > > arm_smmu_install_old_domain_invs() has the sequencing the other way
> > > > around on CPU 1: we should update the STE first.
> > > 
> > > I also think we probably want a dma_mb() instead of an smp_mb() for all
> > > of these examples? It won't make any practical difference but I think it
> > > helps readability given that one of the readers is the PTW.
> > 
> > The only actual dma_wmb() is inside arm_smmu_install_ste_for_dev()
> > after updating the STE. Adding that line explicitly would help as that
> > is the only point where we must have the writes actually visible to
> > the DMA HW.
> > 
> > The ones written here as smp_mb() are not required to be DMA ones and
> > could all be NOP's on UP..
> 
> Hmm, I'm not sure about that.
> 
> If we've written a new (i.e. previously invalid) valid PTE to a
> page-table and then we install that page-table into an STE hitlessly
> (let's say we write the S2TTB field) then isn't there a window before we
> do the STE invalidation where the page-table might be accessible to the
> SMMU but the new PTE is still sitting in the CPU?

Hmm! Yes seems like it.

However, that's seems like a general bug, if we allocate an
iommu_domain and immediately hitlessly install it, then there would be
no dma_wmb() for the page table memory prior to the earliest point the
HW is able to read the STE.

What I wrote is is how things are intended to work, so lets fix it
with this?

@@ -1173,6 +1173,13 @@ void arm_smmu_write_entry(struct arm_smmu_entry_writer *writer, __le64 *entry,
        __le64 unused_update[NUM_ENTRY_QWORDS];
        u8 used_qword_diff;
 
+       /*
+        * Many of the entry structures have pointers to other structures that
+        * need to have their updates be visible before any writes of the entry
+        * happen.
+        */
+       dma_wmb();
+
        used_qword_diff =
                arm_smmu_entry_qword_diff(writer, entry, target, unused_update);
        if (hweight8(used_qword_diff) == 1) {

Jason