[PATCH v3 02/11] iommu/arm-smmu: Introduce iommu_group notifier block

[herrmann.der.user@googlemail.com (Andreas Herrmann)]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:00:35AM +0000, Varun Sethi wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: iommu-bounces at lists.linux-foundation.org [mailto:iommu-
> > bounces at lists.linux-foundation.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Herrmann
> > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 1:27 AM
> > To: Sethi Varun-B16395
> > Cc: Andreas Herrmann; iommu at lists.linux-foundation.org; Will Deacon;
> > linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/11] iommu/arm-smmu: Introduce iommu_group
> > notifier block
> > 
> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 07:07:40PM +0000, Varun Sethi wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Will Deacon [mailto:will.deacon at arm.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:04 PM
> > > > To: Sethi Varun-B16395
> > > > Cc: Andreas Herrmann; iommu at lists.linux-foundation.org; linux-arm-
> > > > kernel at lists.infradead.org; Andreas Herrmann
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/11] iommu/arm-smmu: Introduce iommu_group
> > > > notifier block
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 01:54:11PM +0000, Varun Sethi wrote:
> > > > > > > > Ok, so are you suggesting that we perform the isolation
> > > > > > > > mapping in arm_smmu_add_device and drop the notifier
> > altogether?
> > > > > > > I think that should be fine, until we want to delay mapping
> > > > > > > creation till driver bind time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there a hard dependency on that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Not sure, may be Andreas can answer that.
> > > >
> > > > Ok. Andreas? I would have thought doing this *earlier* shouldn't be
> > > > a problem (the DMA ops must be swizzled before the driver is probed).
> > > >
> > > > > > > But the "isolate device" property should dictate iommu group
> > > > creation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The reason we added automatic group creation (per-device) is for
> > > > > > VFIO, which expects all devices to be in a group regardless of
> > > > > > the device isolation configuration.
> > > > > >
> > > > > IIUC, with the "isolate devices" property we ensure that there
> > > > > would be independent SMR and S2CR per device. Is that correct?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, as part of giving them independent sets of page tables.
> > > > Initially these tables don't have any valid mappings, but the
> > > > dma-mapping API will populate them in response to
> > dma_map_*/dma_alloc/etc.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure what this has to do with us putting devices into their own
> > > > groups...
> > 
> > > [Sethi Varun-B16395] Devices in an iommu group would share the dma
> > > mapping, so shouldn't they be sharing the SMR and context registers?
> > 
> > I aggree with the context but SMRs won't be shared. I think you just can
> > say that a certain subset of the available SMRs will be used to map all
> > devices in an iommu group to the same context. Depending on what
> > streamIDs each device has you might have to use separate SMRs for each
> > device to map it to the same context.

> [Sethi Varun-B16395] IIUC the SMRs would unique per device, but
> there is a possibility where the number of context registers are
> restricted?  In that case IOMMU groups should correspond to unique
> stream IDs (and corresponding SMRs).

> > > In case of the "isolate devices" property, each device would have its
> > > own SMR and context registers, thus allowing the devices to have
> > > independent mappings and allowing them to fall in separate iommu
> > > groups.
> > 
> > I aggree with Varun's view here. (Now that I take iommu groups into
> > consideration.)
> > 
> > But my goal with the "isolate devices" thing was twofold:
> > 
> > 1. actual make use of SMMU for address translation for all master
> >   devices (instead of just bypassing the SMMU)

> [Sethi Varun-B16395] even if masters have to share translation? But
> from the patch it seemed that we are creating mapping only if we
> find the isolate devices property.

Yes, the patch creates mappings only if isolate-devices property is
given. Currently there is no trigger to create a common mapping for
all devices attached to the same SMMU.

> > plus
> > 
> > 2. put each master into it's own domain to isolate it
> > 
> > The latter matches usage of separate iommu groups for devices. If we now
> > use the isolate devices property to just control whether master devices
> > fall into the same or separate iommu groups it seems to me we would need
> > to have another mechanism that triggers the creation of a mapping for a
> > group.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> > 

> [Sethi Varun-B16395] As mentioned before, we should be having iommu
> group per device (having a unique stream id). Isolate devices
> property just ensures that each device has a unique context. Now,
> for the devices for which we don't have the isolate device property,
> can't we have the multiple devices point to a common mapping.

Hmm, the isolate-devices option is per SMMU. So if this is set for an
SMMU the driver tries to create a mapping per device. (And this is
done for all master devices of this SMMU.)

Are you requesting to change the default behaviour of the driver to
create a shared mapping in case the isolate-devices property is not
specified in DT for an SMMU node?

Or maybe your concern is that you have x master devices for an SMMU
which support y number of contexts and x > y? Which would imply that
not all devices can be isolated and some need to share a context?


Andreas