From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: fix unexpected CMD_SYNC timeout Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 18:05:20 +0800 Message-ID: <5B6C11E0.9030908@huawei.com> References: <1533558689-3000-1-git-send-email-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> <20180808101215.GB28557@arm.com> <5B6B994B.10208@huawei.com> <20180809084901.GA28801@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180809084901.GA28801@arm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Will Deacon Cc: Robin Murphy , Joerg Roedel , linux-arm-kernel , iommu , linux-kernel , LinuxArm , Hanjun Guo , Libin List-Id: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org On 2018/8/9 16:49, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 09:30:51AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote: >> On 2018/8/8 18:12, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 08:31:29PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote: >>>> The condition "(int)(VAL - sync_idx) >= 0" to break loop in function >>>> __arm_smmu_sync_poll_msi requires that sync_idx must be increased >>>> monotonously according to the sequence of the CMDs in the cmdq. >>>> >>>> But ".msidata = atomic_inc_return_relaxed(&smmu->sync_nr)" is not protected >>>> by spinlock, so the following scenarios may appear: >>>> cpu0 cpu1 >>>> msidata=0 >>>> msidata=1 >>>> insert cmd1 >>>> insert cmd0 >>>> smmu execute cmd1 >>>> smmu execute cmd0 >>>> poll timeout, because msidata=1 is overridden by >>>> cmd0, that means VAL=0, sync_idx=1. >>> >>> Oh yuck, you're right! We probably want a CC stable on this. Did you see >>> this go wrong in practice? >> Just misreported and make the caller wait for a long time until TIMEOUT. It's >> rare to happen, because any other CMD_SYNC during the waiting period will break >> it. > > Thanks. Please mention that in the commit message, because I think it's > useful to know. OK. > >>>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei >>>> --- >>>> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 7 +++---- >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c >>>> index 1d64710..4810f61 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c >>>> @@ -566,7 +566,7 @@ struct arm_smmu_device { >>>> >>>> int gerr_irq; >>>> int combined_irq; >>>> - atomic_t sync_nr; >>>> + u32 sync_nr; >>>> >>>> unsigned long ias; /* IPA */ >>>> unsigned long oas; /* PA */ >>>> @@ -836,7 +836,6 @@ static int arm_smmu_cmdq_build_cmd(u64 *cmd, struct arm_smmu_cmdq_ent *ent) >>>> cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS, CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS_SEV); >>>> cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_MSH, ARM_SMMU_SH_ISH); >>>> cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_MSIATTR, ARM_SMMU_MEMATTR_OIWB); >>>> - cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_MSIDATA, ent->sync.msidata); >>>> cmd[1] |= ent->sync.msiaddr & CMDQ_SYNC_1_MSIADDR_MASK; >>>> break; >>>> default: >>>> @@ -947,7 +946,6 @@ static int __arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_sync_msi(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu) >>>> struct arm_smmu_cmdq_ent ent = { >>>> .opcode = CMDQ_OP_CMD_SYNC, >>>> .sync = { >>>> - .msidata = atomic_inc_return_relaxed(&smmu->sync_nr), >>>> .msiaddr = virt_to_phys(&smmu->sync_count), >>>> }, >>>> }; >>>> @@ -955,6 +953,8 @@ static int __arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_sync_msi(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu) >>>> arm_smmu_cmdq_build_cmd(cmd, &ent); >>>> >>>> spin_lock_irqsave(&smmu->cmdq.lock, flags); >>>> + ent.sync.msidata = ++smmu->sync_nr; >>>> + cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_MSIDATA, ent.sync.msidata); >>> >>> I really don't like splitting this out from building the rest of the >>> command. Can you just move the call to arm_smmu_cmdq_build_cmd into the >>> critical section, please? >> OK. I have considered that before, just worry it will increase the >> compition of spinlock. > > If you can provide numbers showing that it's a problem, then we could add > a helper function e.g. arm_smmu_cmdq_sync_set_msidata(arm_smmu_cmdq_ent *cmd) The performance data from my current test envirnoment is not stable now, I'm trying to find anothor one. So I want to leave this problem for the time being. If it'a problem, I will send a new patch. > >> In addition, I will append a optimization patch: the adjacent CMD_SYNCs, >> we only need one. > > Ok, but please keep them separate, since I don't want to fix up fixes and > optimisations. OK > > Thanks, > > Will > > . > -- Thanks! BestRegards From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: thunder.leizhen@huawei.com (Leizhen (ThunderTown)) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 18:05:20 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/1] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: fix unexpected CMD_SYNC timeout In-Reply-To: <20180809084901.GA28801@arm.com> References: <1533558689-3000-1-git-send-email-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> <20180808101215.GB28557@arm.com> <5B6B994B.10208@huawei.com> <20180809084901.GA28801@arm.com> Message-ID: <5B6C11E0.9030908@huawei.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 2018/8/9 16:49, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 09:30:51AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote: >> On 2018/8/8 18:12, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 08:31:29PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote: >>>> The condition "(int)(VAL - sync_idx) >= 0" to break loop in function >>>> __arm_smmu_sync_poll_msi requires that sync_idx must be increased >>>> monotonously according to the sequence of the CMDs in the cmdq. >>>> >>>> But ".msidata = atomic_inc_return_relaxed(&smmu->sync_nr)" is not protected >>>> by spinlock, so the following scenarios may appear: >>>> cpu0 cpu1 >>>> msidata=0 >>>> msidata=1 >>>> insert cmd1 >>>> insert cmd0 >>>> smmu execute cmd1 >>>> smmu execute cmd0 >>>> poll timeout, because msidata=1 is overridden by >>>> cmd0, that means VAL=0, sync_idx=1. >>> >>> Oh yuck, you're right! We probably want a CC stable on this. Did you see >>> this go wrong in practice? >> Just misreported and make the caller wait for a long time until TIMEOUT. It's >> rare to happen, because any other CMD_SYNC during the waiting period will break >> it. > > Thanks. Please mention that in the commit message, because I think it's > useful to know. OK. > >>>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei >>>> --- >>>> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 7 +++---- >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c >>>> index 1d64710..4810f61 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c >>>> @@ -566,7 +566,7 @@ struct arm_smmu_device { >>>> >>>> int gerr_irq; >>>> int combined_irq; >>>> - atomic_t sync_nr; >>>> + u32 sync_nr; >>>> >>>> unsigned long ias; /* IPA */ >>>> unsigned long oas; /* PA */ >>>> @@ -836,7 +836,6 @@ static int arm_smmu_cmdq_build_cmd(u64 *cmd, struct arm_smmu_cmdq_ent *ent) >>>> cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS, CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS_SEV); >>>> cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_MSH, ARM_SMMU_SH_ISH); >>>> cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_MSIATTR, ARM_SMMU_MEMATTR_OIWB); >>>> - cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_MSIDATA, ent->sync.msidata); >>>> cmd[1] |= ent->sync.msiaddr & CMDQ_SYNC_1_MSIADDR_MASK; >>>> break; >>>> default: >>>> @@ -947,7 +946,6 @@ static int __arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_sync_msi(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu) >>>> struct arm_smmu_cmdq_ent ent = { >>>> .opcode = CMDQ_OP_CMD_SYNC, >>>> .sync = { >>>> - .msidata = atomic_inc_return_relaxed(&smmu->sync_nr), >>>> .msiaddr = virt_to_phys(&smmu->sync_count), >>>> }, >>>> }; >>>> @@ -955,6 +953,8 @@ static int __arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_sync_msi(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu) >>>> arm_smmu_cmdq_build_cmd(cmd, &ent); >>>> >>>> spin_lock_irqsave(&smmu->cmdq.lock, flags); >>>> + ent.sync.msidata = ++smmu->sync_nr; >>>> + cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_MSIDATA, ent.sync.msidata); >>> >>> I really don't like splitting this out from building the rest of the >>> command. Can you just move the call to arm_smmu_cmdq_build_cmd into the >>> critical section, please? >> OK. I have considered that before, just worry it will increase the >> compition of spinlock. > > If you can provide numbers showing that it's a problem, then we could add > a helper function e.g. arm_smmu_cmdq_sync_set_msidata(arm_smmu_cmdq_ent *cmd) The performance data from my current test envirnoment is not stable now, I'm trying to find anothor one. So I want to leave this problem for the time being. If it'a problem, I will send a new patch. > >> In addition, I will append a optimization patch: the adjacent CMD_SYNCs, >> we only need one. > > Ok, but please keep them separate, since I don't want to fix up fixes and > optimisations. OK > > Thanks, > > Will > > . > -- Thanks! BestRegards