From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
"Guohanjun (Hanjun Guo)" <guohanjun@huawei.com>
Cc: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>,
Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>,
iommu <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: arm64 iommu groups issue
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 19:40:42 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <be464e2a-03d5-0b2e-24ee-96d0d14fd739@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ddc7eaff-c3f9-4304-9b4e-75eff2c66cd5@huawei.com>
On 13/02/2020 3:49 pm, John Garry wrote:
>>>
>>> The underlying issue is that, for historical reasons, OF/IORT-based
>>> IOMMU drivers have ended up with group allocation being tied to endpoint
>>> driver probing via the dma_configure() mechanism (long story short,
>>> driver probe is the only thing which can be delayed in order to wait for
>>> a specific IOMMU instance to be ready).However, in the meantime, the
>>> IOMMU API internals have evolved sufficiently that I think there's a way
>>> to really put things right - I have the spark of an idea which I'll try
>>> to sketch out ASAP...
>>>
>>
>> OK, great.
>
> Hi Robin,
>
> I was wondering if you have had a chance to consider this problem again?
Yeah, sorry, more things came up such that it still hasn't been P yet ;)
Lorenzo and I did get as far as discussing it a bit more and writing up
a ticket, so it's formally on our internal radar now, at least.
> One simple idea could be to introduce a device link between the endpoint
> device and its parent bridge to ensure that they probe in order, as
> expected in pci_device_group():
>
> Subject: [PATCH] PCI: Add device link to ensure endpoint device driver
> probes after bridge
>
> It is required to ensure that a device driver for an endpoint will probe
> after the parent port driver, so add a device link for this.
>
> ---
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/probe.c b/drivers/pci/probe.c
> index 512cb4312ddd..4b832ad25b20 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/probe.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/probe.c
> @@ -2383,6 +2383,7 @@ static void pci_set_msi_domain(struct pci_dev *dev)
> void pci_device_add(struct pci_dev *dev, struct pci_bus *bus)
> {
> int ret;
> + struct device *parent;
>
> pci_configure_device(dev);
>
> @@ -2420,6 +2421,10 @@ void pci_device_add(struct pci_dev *dev, struct
> pci_bus *bus)
> /* Set up MSI IRQ domain */
> pci_set_msi_domain(dev);
>
> + parent = dev->dev.parent;
> + if (parent && parent->bus == &pci_bus_type)
> + device_link_add(&dev->dev, parent, DL_FLAG_AUTOPROBE_CONSUMER);
> +
> /* Notifier could use PCI capabilities */
> dev->match_driver = false;
> ret = device_add(&dev->dev);
> --
>
> This would work, but the problem is that if the port driver fails in
> probing - and not just for -EPROBE_DEFER - then the child device will
> never probe. This very thing happens on my dev board. However we could
> expand the device links API to cover this sort of scenario.
Yes, that's an undesirable issue, but in fact I think it's mostly
indicative that involving drivers in something which is designed to
happen at a level below drivers is still fundamentally wrong and doomed
to be fragile at best.
Another thought that crosses my mind is that when pci_device_group()
walks up to the point of ACS isolation and doesn't find an existing
group, it can still infer that everything it walked past *should* be put
in the same group it's then eventually going to return. Unfortunately I
can't see an obvious way for it to act on that knowledge, though, since
recursive iommu_probe_device() is unlikely to end well.
> As for alternatives, it looks pretty difficult to me to disassociate the
> group allocation from the dma_configure path.
Indeed it's non-trivial, but it really does need cleaning up at some point.
Having just had yet another spark, does something like the untested
super-hack below work at all? I doubt it's a viable direction to take in
itself, but it could be food for thought if it at least proves the concept.
Robin.
----->8-----
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
index aa3ac2a03807..554cde76c766 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
@@ -3841,20 +3841,20 @@ static int arm_smmu_set_bus_ops(struct iommu_ops
*ops)
int err;
#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
- if (pci_bus_type.iommu_ops != ops) {
+ if (1) {
err = bus_set_iommu(&pci_bus_type, ops);
if (err)
return err;
}
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_AMBA
- if (amba_bustype.iommu_ops != ops) {
+ if (1) {
err = bus_set_iommu(&amba_bustype, ops);
if (err)
goto err_reset_pci_ops;
}
#endif
- if (platform_bus_type.iommu_ops != ops) {
+ if (1) {
err = bus_set_iommu(&platform_bus_type, ops);
if (err)
goto err_reset_amba_ops;
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
index 660eea8d1d2f..b81ae2b4d4fb 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
@@ -1542,6 +1542,14 @@ static int iommu_bus_init(struct bus_type *bus,
const struct iommu_ops *ops)
return err;
}
+static int iommu_bus_replay(struct device *dev, void *data)
+{
+ if (dev->iommu_group)
+ return 0;
+
+ return add_iommu_group(dev, data);
+}
+
/**
* bus_set_iommu - set iommu-callbacks for the bus
* @bus: bus.
@@ -1564,6 +1572,9 @@ int bus_set_iommu(struct bus_type *bus, const
struct iommu_ops *ops)
return 0;
}
+ if (bus->iommu_ops == ops)
+ return bus_for_each_dev(bus, NULL, NULL, iommu_bus_replay);
+
if (bus->iommu_ops != NULL)
return -EBUSY;
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-13 19:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-19 8:43 arm64 iommu groups issue John Garry
2019-09-19 13:25 ` Robin Murphy
2019-09-19 14:35 ` John Garry
2019-11-04 12:18 ` John Garry
2020-02-13 15:49 ` John Garry
2020-02-13 19:40 ` Robin Murphy [this message]
2020-02-14 14:09 ` John Garry
2020-02-14 18:35 ` Robin Murphy
2020-02-17 12:08 ` John Garry
2020-06-12 14:30 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2020-06-15 7:35 ` John Garry
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=be464e2a-03d5-0b2e-24ee-96d0d14fd739@arm.com \
--to=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
--cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=saravanak@google.com \
--cc=shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.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