Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add support for dirty tracking in domain alloc

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 09:49:22AM +0000, Shameer Kolothum wrote:
> From: Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@oracle.com>
> 
> This provides all the infrastructure to enable dirty tracking if the
> hardware has the capability and domain alloc request for it.
> 
> Please note, we still report no support for IOMMU_CAP_DIRTY_TRACKING
> as it will finally be enabled in a subsequent patch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@oracle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 95 ++++++++++++++++-----
>  include/linux/io-pgtable.h                  |  4 +
>  2 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 22 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 bd30739e3588..058bbb0dbe2e 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_msipolling,
>  	"Disable MSI-based polling for CMD_SYNC completion.");
>  
>  static struct iommu_ops arm_smmu_ops;
> +static struct iommu_dirty_ops arm_smmu_dirty_ops;
>  
>  enum arm_smmu_msi_index {
>  	EVTQ_MSI_INDEX,
> @@ -86,7 +87,8 @@ static struct arm_smmu_option_prop arm_smmu_options[] = {
>  
>  static void arm_smmu_rmr_install_bypass_ste(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu);
>  static int arm_smmu_domain_finalise(struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain,
> -				    struct arm_smmu_device *smmu);
> +				    struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
> +				    bool enable_dirty);
>  static int arm_smmu_alloc_cd_tables(struct arm_smmu_master *master);
>  static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_all_s2(struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain);
>  
> @@ -2378,7 +2380,7 @@ static struct iommu_domain *arm_smmu_domain_alloc_paging(struct device *dev)
>  		struct arm_smmu_master *master = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
>  		int ret;
>  
> -		ret = arm_smmu_domain_finalise(smmu_domain, master->smmu);
> +		ret = arm_smmu_domain_finalise(smmu_domain, master->smmu, false);
>  		if (ret) {
>  			kfree(smmu_domain);
>  			return ERR_PTR(ret);
> @@ -2445,10 +2447,11 @@ static void arm_smmu_domain_free(struct iommu_domain *domain)
>  }
>  
>  static int arm_smmu_domain_finalise(struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain,
> -				    struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> +				    struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
> +				    bool enable_dirty)

It is possibly a bit more readable if this is a flags and the test is
on IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_DIRTY_TRACKING

>  {
>  	int ret;
> -	unsigned long ias, oas;
> +	unsigned long ias;

Isn't ias unused too?

> @@ -3193,7 +3197,9 @@ arm_smmu_domain_alloc_user(struct device *dev, u32 flags,
>  			   const struct iommu_user_data *user_data)
>  {
>  	struct arm_smmu_master *master = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
> -	const u32 paging_flags = IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_NEST_PARENT;
> +	const u32 paging_flags = IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_NEST_PARENT |
> +				 IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_DIRTY_TRACKING;
> +	bool enforce_dirty = flags & IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_DIRTY_TRACKING;

Ah you based this on the nesting series.. Once part 2 is done we
should try to figure out what the order should be..

> +static int arm_smmu_read_and_clear_dirty(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> +					 unsigned long iova, size_t size,
> +					 unsigned long flags,
> +					 struct iommu_dirty_bitmap *dirty)
> +{
> +	struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = to_smmu_domain(domain);
> +	struct io_pgtable_ops *ops = smmu_domain->pgtbl_ops;
> +
> +	if (smmu_domain->stage != ARM_SMMU_DOMAIN_S1)
> +		return -EINVAL;

This is not possible, these ops are only installed on S1 domains.

> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!ops || !ops->read_and_clear_dirty))
> +		return -ENODEV;

This is not really needed, if this is corrupted then this will have a
tidy crash:

> +	return ops->read_and_clear_dirty(ops, iova, size, flags, dirty);

If you are worried then move the WARN_ON into the finalize function to
ensure tha tthe io_pgtable_ops is properly formed after creating it.

> +static int arm_smmu_set_dirty_tracking(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> +				       bool enabled)
> +{
> +	struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = to_smmu_domain(domain);
> +	struct io_pgtable_ops *ops = smmu_domain->pgtbl_ops;
> +
> +	if (smmu_domain->stage != ARM_SMMU_DOMAIN_S1)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!ops))
> +		return -ENODEV;

Ditto for both of these

Otherwise it looks OK to me

Jason

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel