From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] iommu/vt-d: Optimize iotlb_sync_map for non-caching/non-RWBF modes
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 08:55:59 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250717115559.GD2177622@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8aedbbcc-9f4c-4700-acb7-43ec4f540135@linux.intel.com>
On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 10:40:01AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 7/16/25 22:12, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 12:50:19PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> > > @@ -1833,6 +1845,8 @@ static int dmar_domain_attach_device(struct dmar_domain *domain,
> > > if (ret)
> > > goto out_block_translation;
> > > + domain->iotlb_sync_map |= domain_need_iotlb_sync_map(domain, iommu);
> >
> > This has no locking and is in the wrong order anyhow :(
> >
> > Any change to how invalidation works has to be done before attaching
> > the HW so that the required invalidations are already happening before
> > the HW can walk the page table.
> >
> > And you need to serialize somehow with concurrent map/unmap as iommufd
> > doesn't prevent userspace from racing attach with map/unmap.
>
> domain->iotlb_sync_map does not change the driver's behavior. It simply
> indicates that there's no need to waste time calling
> cache_tag_flush_range_np(), as it's just a no-op.
Of course it changes the behavior, it changes what the invalidation
callback does.
Without locking you have a race situation where a PGD is visible to HW
that requires extra flushing and the SW is not doing the extra
flushing.
Before any PGD is made visible to the HW the software must ensure all
the required invalidations are happening.
> I previously discussed this with Kevin, and we agreed on a phase-by-
> phase approach. As I mentioned, domain->iotlb_sync_map is merely a hint
> for the driver, preventing it from looping through all cache tags to
> determine if any cache invalidation work needs to be performed. We
> already know it's predetermined that no work needs to be done.
The iteration though the cache tags is done inside a lock so it
doesn't have this race (it has the issue I mentioned setting up the
cache tage list though).
> RWBF is only required on some early implementations where memory
> coherence was not yet implemented by the VT-d engine. It should be
> difficult to find such systems in modern environments.
Then I would set it at domain creation time, check it during attach,
and remove this race.
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-17 11:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-14 4:50 [PATCH 00/11] [PULL REQUEST] Intel IOMMU updates for v6.17 Lu Baolu
2025-07-14 4:50 ` [PATCH 01/11] iommu/vt-d: Remove the CONFIG_X86 wrapping from iommu init hook Lu Baolu
2025-07-14 4:50 ` [PATCH 02/11] iommu/vt-d: Optimize iotlb_sync_map for non-caching/non-RWBF modes Lu Baolu
2025-07-16 14:12 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-07-17 2:40 ` Baolu Lu
2025-07-17 11:55 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2025-07-18 2:56 ` Baolu Lu
2025-07-18 13:29 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-07-21 1:57 ` Baolu Lu
2025-07-14 4:50 ` [PATCH 03/11] iommu/vt-d: Lift the __pa to domain_setup_first_level/intel_svm_set_dev_pasid() Lu Baolu
2025-07-14 4:50 ` [PATCH 04/11] iommu/vt-d: Fold domain_exit() into intel_iommu_domain_free() Lu Baolu
2025-07-14 4:50 ` [PATCH 05/11] iommu/vt-d: Do not wipe out the page table NID when devices detach Lu Baolu
2025-07-14 4:50 ` [PATCH 06/11] iommu/vt-d: Split intel_iommu_domain_alloc_paging_flags() Lu Baolu
2025-07-14 4:50 ` [PATCH 07/11] iommu/vt-d: Create unique domain ops for each stage Lu Baolu
2025-07-14 4:50 ` [PATCH 08/11] iommu/vt-d: Split intel_iommu_enforce_cache_coherency() Lu Baolu
2025-07-14 4:50 ` [PATCH 09/11] iommu/vt-d: Split paging_domain_compatible() Lu Baolu
2025-07-14 4:50 ` [PATCH 10/11] iommu/vt-d: Fix missing PASID in dev TLB flush with cache_tag_flush_all Lu Baolu
2025-07-14 4:50 ` [PATCH 11/11] iommu/vt-d: Deduplicate cache_tag_flush_all by reusing flush_range Lu Baolu
2025-07-14 11:00 ` [PATCH 00/11] [PULL REQUEST] Intel IOMMU updates for v6.17 Will Deacon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250717115559.GD2177622@nvidia.com \
--to=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.