From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f169.google.com (mail-pl1-f169.google.com [209.85.214.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39C151586C0 for ; Fri, 3 May 2024 18:11:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.169 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714759863; cv=none; b=UbQ+QJCUbNq8uExRpwlIVYf+1olJH6gS86YIp6ntcmRQhT+lXMdKRgT88K/wFWah2bvCjXH6l9GuN/+McrEhZtzf7p88cKsDBedM5s0InstbM2Q1saAf3W1u2J07rJZEkDpe/cfJ0X7yNPiTaFXIl36tPiLzMVOJfNncRBwX1DM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714759863; c=relaxed/simple; bh=BDV4LFF0W3nkIbkwscNnSoy9CovnMcY/0BmN6MMpQpw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=KDsgqcl04xcK37gwkojcNSux2Aijve8nAUV8zfPLSVRbWY5Je5rdVk1g+tBvpiE043VIjuErq5m76W7/9rWeBn/DMpIANgosZDYi4sJRyr7cXxxWbILk2rCSRxF5+e1qwYhOzkiBYBhKrERXUL1sdFgpZHm+F0l8g1IeN2E9p+A= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ziepe.ca; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ziepe.ca; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ziepe.ca header.i=@ziepe.ca header.b=OckI3COm; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.169 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ziepe.ca Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ziepe.ca Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ziepe.ca header.i=@ziepe.ca header.b="OckI3COm" Received: by mail-pl1-f169.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1e4c4fb6af3so22565275ad.0 for ; Fri, 03 May 2024 11:11:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ziepe.ca; s=google; t=1714759861; x=1715364661; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=HP0E+W4CNjdiqYdYJTTOaBAgmGAiW3lunGcWq/PWMeo=; b=OckI3COmCWg48WIafHfiTPCCqjhToHdFiph+b1XLasi8jOUhNcy6Gg5YWBdXCs+oqS yQcG7ovmzGrP/qsVN5HfEaQ3L97+HE4yCNhnR6SWUh41xpZyqk8BYivPvovcI0XfA2Qe Q9Sq5wh95kP9wxDkJe9isYJfFAC8Qlt0bHhZ1Ax9ClWrzzYdhy0GM3nc9EknQ3Qy82XC 15SaJxCVQHUEvtsXK4ngjPsr7uj3RMY/mbU/b3XsWOb2mrxHjkc9e+jrZbgPUa7Xo0Vf mhLUobtIVLrCWmDh7YKYABhEBkPjInXZN4L37+Hiw2OvA5pHs1oneIpLN5hVpa5Y1/YL hlZg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1714759861; x=1715364661; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=HP0E+W4CNjdiqYdYJTTOaBAgmGAiW3lunGcWq/PWMeo=; b=cOEiasGNx/Bx/LTVK2rA2bLl/m6o6hhnf1nZpzg6liO8KJnQSBwyz9Q9KAQhNDqHci mFza741MOCymjvgO60YzaTaCIzeWLGCiFNuuMPK3JIilupZkb6rsLYPUX+h0uj+FTGfO 4l/oKWdL9kStv6MtPjAt41/It2YYGP8gaKA3fHu3sTVq9aSYCvc+ybF82a33PNg7GBL1 0qvS4nUonITAQjDjeA50zLPWg5wb/GnwxSn7vB0wsdNNFM0DIas4rnhx9JMv18gXa3Ne nfRV92gVf+Ocu3aphzwcfiDAKhI+m7MR8BU/SmviNWBuYI1Um2uGCQA8nRrW6vXYraEl 72hw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCX/RGYhB8bpdP1Kd302Jaj3t/T1eSkxxFxq3G2S27vux/WoDq/FEwNjd8ymcZEy5wWGeaJikraL6CNBsjn1d2x0LmlhNzI= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwHxcVQBAB443sk8qw4Y0nXsCoQ1v4f0XCRb28XAdodANGZ6zn3 WEZheTu5VJ+2jq2Mha5RkTKwb/t9cGiWUU69wp4S5l4kZTQVhJZwfX3hGSBl5IE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHo2vpIWpxJAU/WjqREvj8GpGY4pEVGXqwcLeuMUP5qY8hdLdogyncesU12hPqCxKNhJeFqIg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:120f:b0:1e5:560d:8519 with SMTP id l15-20020a170903120f00b001e5560d8519mr5281572plh.0.1714759861404; Fri, 03 May 2024 11:11:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ziepe.ca (hlfxns017vw-142-68-80-239.dhcp-dynamic.fibreop.ns.bellaliant.net. [142.68.80.239]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p23-20020a1709027ed700b001ec379d8167sm3590693plb.115.2024.05.03.11.11.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 03 May 2024 11:11:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jgg by wakko with local (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1s2xN5-007WHT-5q; Fri, 03 May 2024 15:10:59 -0300 Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 15:10:59 -0300 From: Jason Gunthorpe To: Tomasz Jeznach Cc: Joerg Roedel , Will Deacon , Robin Murphy , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Anup Patel , Sunil V L , Nick Kossifidis , Sebastien Boeuf , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux@rivosinc.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] iommu/riscv: Paging domain support Message-ID: <20240503181059.GC901876@ziepe.ca> References: <20240501145621.GD1723318@ziepe.ca> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: iommu@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 10:44:14AM -0700, Tomasz Jeznach wrote: > > > + list_for_each_entry_rcu(bond, &domain->bonds, list) { > > > + if (bond->dev == dev) { > > > + list_del_rcu(&bond->list); > > > + found = bond; > > > + } > > > + } > > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&domain->lock, flags); > > > + > > > + /* Release and wait for all read-rcu critical sections have completed. */ > > > + kfree_rcu(found, rcu); > > > + synchronize_rcu(); > > > > Please no, synchronize_rcu() on a path like this is not so > > reasonable.. Also you don't need kfree_rcu() if you write it like this. > > > > This still looks better to do what I said before, put the iommu not > > the dev in the bond struct. > > > > > > I was trying not to duplicate data in bond struct and use whatever is > available to be referenced from dev pointer (eg iommu / ids / private > iommu dev data). I'm not sure that is a valuable goal considering the RCU complexity.. But I suppose it would be a bit of a hassle to replicate the ids list into bond structurs. Maybe something to do when you get to ATS since you'll probably want to replicate the ATS RIDs. (see what Intel did, which I think is pretty good) > If I'm reading core iommu code correctly, device pointer and iommu > pointers should be valid between _probe_device and _release_device > calls. I've moved synchronize_rcu out of the domain attach path to > _release_device, LMK if that would be ok for now. I'll have a > second another to rework other patches to avoid storing dev pointers > at all. Yes, that seems better.. I'm happier to see device hot-unplug be slow than un attach There is another issue with the RCU that I haven't wrapped my head around.. Technically we can have concurrent map/unmap/invalidation along side device attach/detach. Does the invalidation under RCU work correctly? For detach I think yes: Inv CPU Detach CPU write io_pte Update device descriptor rcu_read_lock list_for_each dma_wmb() dma_wmb() rcu_read_unlock list_del_rcu() In this case I think we never miss an invalidation, the list_del is always after the HW has been fully fenced, so I don't think we can have any issue. Maybe a suprious invalidation if the ASID gets re-used, but who cares. Attach is different.. Inv CPU Attach CPU write io_pte rcu_read_lock list_for_each // empty list_add_rcu() Update device descriptor dma_wmb() rcu_read_unlock As above shows we can "miss" an invalidation. The issue is narrow, the io_pte could still be sitting in write buffers in "Inv CPU" and not yet globally visiable. "Attach CPU" could get the device descriptor installed in the IOMMU and the IOMMU could walk an io_pte that is in the old state. Effectively this is because there is no release/acquire barrier passing the io_pte store from the Inv CPU to the Attach CPU to the IOMMU. It seems like it should be solvable somehow: 1) Inv CPU releases all the io ptes 2) Attach CPU acquires the io ptes before updating the DDT 3) Inv CPU acquires the RCU list in such a way that either attach CPU will acquire the io_pte or inv CPU will acquire the RCU list. 4) Either invalidation works or we release the new iopte to the SMMU and don't need it. But #3 is a really weird statement. smb_mb() on both sides may do the job?? > > The number of radix levels is a tunable alot of iommus have that we > > haven't really exposed to anything else yet. > > Makes sense. I've left an option to pick mode from MMU for cases where > dev/iommu is not known at allocation time (with iommu_domain_alloc()). > I'd guess it's reasonable to assume IOMMU supported page modes will > match MMU. Reasonable, but for this case you'd be best to have a global static that unifies the capability of all the iommu instances. Then you can pick the right thing from the installed iommus, and arguably, that is the right thing to do in all cases as we'd slightly prefer domains that work everywhere in that edge case. Jason