Re: [PATCH 1/3] iommu/io-pgtable-arm: Add nents_per_pgtable in struct io_pgtable_cfg

[Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>]

Hi Will/Robin,

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 10:39:15AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
 
> Though I have not dig enough, I assume that this worst case could
> happen to SVA too, since the IOTLB invalidation is from MMU code.
> But the same worst case might not happen to non-SVA pathway, i.e.
> TLBI ops for IO Page Table doesn't really benefit from this?
> 
> With that being questioned, I got Robin's remarks that it wouldn't
> be easy to decide the arbitrary number, so we could just take the
> worst case from SVA pathway as the common threshold.
> 
> Then, SVA uses the CPU page table, so perhaps we should highlight
> that SMMU sets the threshold directly reusing the MAX_TLBI_OPS of
> CPU page table rather than calculating from IO page table, though
> both of them are in the same format?

Our test team encountered a soft lockup in this path today:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#244 stuck for 26s!
pstate: 83400009 (Nzcv daif +PAN -UAO +TCO +DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
pc : arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist+0x178/0xa50
lr : arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist+0x150/0xa50
sp : ffff8000d83ef290
x29: ffff8000d83ef290 x28: 000000003b9aca00 x27: 0000000000000000
x26: ffff8000d83ef3c0 x25: da86c0812194a0e8 x24: 0000000000000000
x23: 0000000000000040 x22: ffff8000d83ef340 x21: ffff0000c63980c0
x20: 0000000000000001 x19: ffff0000c6398080 x18: 0000000000000000
x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000 x15: ffff3000b4a3bbb0
x14: ffff3000b4a30888 x13: ffff3000b4a3cf60 x12: 0000000000000000
x11: 0000000000000000 x10: 0000000000000000 x9 : ffffc08120e4d6bc
x8 : 0000000000000000 x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 0000000000048cfa
x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 : 0000000000000001 x3 : 000000000000000a
x2 : 0000000080000000 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000001
Call trace:
 arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist+0x178/0xa50
 __arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range+0x118/0x254
 arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_asid+0x6c/0x130
 arm_smmu_mm_invalidate_range+0xa0/0xa4
 __mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end+0x88/0x120
 unmap_vmas+0x194/0x1e0
 unmap_region+0xb4/0x144
 do_mas_align_munmap+0x290/0x490
 do_mas_munmap+0xbc/0x124
 __vm_munmap+0xa8/0x19c
 __arm64_sys_munmap+0x28/0x50
 invoke_syscall+0x78/0x11c
 el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x58/0x1c0
 do_el0_svc+0x34/0x60
 el0_svc+0x2c/0xd4
 el0t_64_sync_handler+0x114/0x140
 el0t_64_sync+0x1a4/0x1a8
--------------------------------------------------------------------


I think it is the same problem that we fixed in tlbflush.h using
MAX_TLBI_OPS. So, I plan to send a cleaner bug fix (cc stable):
--------------------------------------------------------------------
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c
index a5a63b1c947e..e3ea7d2a6308 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c
@@ -186,6 +186,9 @@ static void arm_smmu_free_shared_cd(struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc *cd)
        }
 }

+/* Copid from arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h to avoid similar soft lockups */
+#define MAX_TLBI_OPS   (1 << (PAGE_SHIFT - 3))
+
 static void arm_smmu_mm_invalidate_range(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
                                         struct mm_struct *mm,
                                         unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
@@ -201,9 +204,14 @@ static void arm_smmu_mm_invalidate_range(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
         */
        size = end - start;

-       if (!(smmu_domain->smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_BTM))
-               arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_asid(start, size, smmu_mn->cd->asid,
-                                           PAGE_SIZE, false, smmu_domain);
+       if (!(smmu_domain->smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_BTM)) {
+               if (!(smmu_domain->smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_RANGE_INV) &&
+                   size >= MAX_TLBI_OPS * PAGE_SIZE)
+                       arm_smmu_tlb_inv_asid(smmu_domain->smmu, smmu_mn->cd->asid);
+               else
+                       arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_asid(start, size, smmu_mn->cd->asid,
+                                                   PAGE_SIZE, false, smmu_domain);
+       }
        arm_smmu_atc_inv_domain(smmu_domain, mm->pasid, start, size);
 }
--------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you think about it?

Thanks
Nic

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