Linux-ARM-Kernel Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc: <iommu@lists.linux.dev>, "Joerg Roedel (AMD)" <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Jean-Philippe Brucker <jpb@kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
	"Pasha Tatashin" <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
	<patches@lists.linux.dev>,
	"Pranjal Shrivastava" <praan@google.com>,
	Samiullah Khawaja <skhawaja@google.com>,
	Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Change how the tlbi describes the invalidation
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2026 22:29:34 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ak3gPqsdg94TTDLJ@Asurada-Nvidia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7-v2-43074a57a53a+fb95-smmu_tlbi_jgg@nvidia.com>

On Mon, Jul 06, 2026 at 01:26:44PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> + * Compute the stride for non-RIL single-page invalidation. Returns the log2
> + * stride of the lowest affected level. Single invalidation removes all IOPTEs
> + * that contain the IOVA invalidated, and we can reliably assume that the
> + * architected page size and table sizes (not contiguous!) are reflected in the
> + * IOTLB. Thus if there is a 2M leaf entry we only need to issue a single IOTLB
> + * invalidation within that 2M IOVA.
> + */
> +static u8 arm_smmu_tlbi_calc_stride(struct arm_smmu_tlbi *tlbi)
> +{
> +	unsigned int tg_lg2 = tlbi->smmu_domain->tgsz_lg2;
> +	u8 combined = tlbi->table_levels_bitmap | tlbi->leaf_levels_bitmap;
> +
> +	if (!combined)
> +		return U8_MAX;
> +	return (tg_lg2 - 3) * __ffs(combined) + tg_lg2;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * One TLBI command per stride-sized entry. Sets use_full_inv if too many

This is raised by Claude; not sure whether it is a false positive
or not.

This changes a previous per-pte invalidation to per-pmd one. Yet,
the spec states in 4.4 TLB invalidation (last paragraph):

  To match a TLB entry, the least significant bits of the address
  are ignored as needed, given the size of the entry.

So, the following scenario would likely miss leaf entries:

VFIO_IOMMU_UNMAP_DMA / IOMMU_IOAS_UNMAP
  iommu_unmap(domain, iova=0x40000000, size=2M)
    __iommu_unmap()
      iommu_pgsize()  -> picks pgsize=2M (aligned, 2M in pgsize_bitmap;
                         irrelevant that the region was mapped as 4K pages)
      arm_lpae_unmap_pages(iova, 2M, pgcount=1, gather)
        __arm_lpae_unmap(lvl=0) -> lvl=1 -> lvl=2:    size == BLOCK_SIZE(lvl 2)
          pte = READ_ONCE(*ptep)         -> a TABLE descriptor, not a block
          __arm_lpae_clear_pte()          # L2 descriptor := 0
          io_pgtable_tlb_flush_walk(iova, 2M, granule=4K)
            arm_smmu_tlb_inv_walk()
              tlbi = { start=0x40000000, last=0x401fffff,
                       table_levels_bitmap = BIT((ilog2(2M)-12)/9) = 0b010,
                       leaf_levels_bitmap  = 0 }              <-- the false claim
              arm_smmu_domain_tlbi()
                arm_smmu_tlbi_calc_single():
                  calc_stride: __ffs(0b010) = 1 -> stride = 2M
                  num_ops = 2M >> 21 = 1
                arm_smmu_domain_tlbi_inv()
                  non-RIL entry: ONE TLBI_NH_VA @0x40000000, Leaf=0
                    -> kills the walk entry + the 4K leaf at base
                    -> 511 4K leaves SURVIVE
          __arm_lpae_free_pgtable()       # subtree freed, no invalidation
    iommu_iotlb_sync(domain, &gather)     # gather->pgsize == 0 -> returns immediately

> +	 * If leaf_levels_bitmap is 0 then this is a walk cache only
> +	 * invalidation.
[...]
> +	u8 leaf_levels_bitmap;

Or is that only to implement a walkcache-only invalidation, such
that the leaf entries will have separate invalidation call(s)?

Nicolin


  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-07-08  5:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-07-06 16:26 [PATCH v2 0/8] Organize the SMMUv3 invalidation flow so iommupt can use it Jason Gunthorpe
2026-07-06 16:26 ` [PATCH v2 1/8] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Pass the parameters for the invalidation in a struct Jason Gunthorpe
2026-07-07  3:04   ` Nicolin Chen
2026-07-07 11:18   ` Mostafa Saleh
2026-07-06 16:26 ` [PATCH v2 2/8] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Move pgsize out of arm_smmu_inv Jason Gunthorpe
2026-07-07  3:57   ` Nicolin Chen
2026-07-07 16:15     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-07-07 17:21       ` Nicolin Chen
2026-07-07 11:24   ` Mostafa Saleh
2026-07-07 18:08     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-07-06 16:26 ` [PATCH v2 3/8] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Optimize range invalidation for latency Jason Gunthorpe
2026-07-07  7:27   ` Nicolin Chen
2026-07-07 19:13     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-07-07 21:07       ` Nicolin Chen
2026-07-07 11:45   ` Mostafa Saleh
2026-07-08  0:10     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-07-06 16:26 ` [PATCH v2 4/8] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Keep track in the arm_smmu_invs if RIL is used Jason Gunthorpe
2026-07-07  7:27   ` Nicolin Chen
2026-07-07 11:46   ` Mostafa Saleh
2026-07-06 16:26 ` [PATCH v2 5/8] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Precompute the invalidation commands Jason Gunthorpe
2026-07-07 11:52   ` Mostafa Saleh
2026-07-07 14:58     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-07-08  9:00       ` Mostafa Saleh
2026-07-07 20:31   ` Nicolin Chen
2026-07-06 16:26 ` [PATCH v2 6/8] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Populate the tlbi at the top of the call chain Jason Gunthorpe
2026-07-07 11:57   ` Mostafa Saleh
2026-07-07 21:51   ` Nicolin Chen
2026-07-06 16:26 ` [PATCH v2 7/8] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Change how the tlbi describes the invalidation Jason Gunthorpe
2026-07-06 18:00   ` Robin Murphy
2026-07-06 19:45     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-07-08  1:41   ` Nicolin Chen
2026-07-08  5:29   ` Nicolin Chen [this message]
2026-07-06 16:26 ` [PATCH v2 8/8] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Support the DS expansion of RIL's SCALE Jason Gunthorpe
2026-07-07 23:20   ` Nicolin Chen
2026-07-08  0:02     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-07-08  2:10       ` Nicolin Chen
2026-07-07 12:25 ` [PATCH v2 0/8] Organize the SMMUv3 invalidation flow so iommupt can use it Mostafa Saleh
2026-07-07 15:00   ` Jason Gunthorpe

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=ak3gPqsdg94TTDLJ@Asurada-Nvidia \
    --to=nicolinc@nvidia.com \
    --cc=dmatlack@google.com \
    --cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=jgg@nvidia.com \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=jpb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
    --cc=patches@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=praan@google.com \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=skhawaja@google.com \
    --cc=smostafa@google.com \
    --cc=will@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox