From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>, <joro@8bytes.org>,
<will@kernel.org>, <bhelgaas@google.com>, <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
<patches@lists.linux.dev>, <pjaroszynski@nvidia.com>,
<vsethi@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 0/2] iommu&pci: Disable ATS during FLR resets
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 13:36:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aEiXXYdhyeqcNiHX@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250610163045.GI543171@nvidia.com>
On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 01:30:45PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 04:37:58PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > On 2025-06-09 7:45 pm, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Per PCIe r6.3, sec 10.3.1 IMPLEMENTATION NOTE, software should disable ATS
> > > before initiating a Function Level Reset, and then ensure no invalidation
> > > requests being issued to a device when its ATS capability is disabled.
> >
> > Not really - what it says is that software should not expect to receive
> > invalidate completions from a function which is in the process of being
> > reset or powered off, and if software doesn't want to be confused by that
> > then it should take care to wait for completion or timeout of all
> > outstanding requests, and avoid issuing new requests, before initiating such
> > a reset or power transition.
>
> The commit message can be more precise, but I agree with the
> conclusion that the right direction for Linux is to disable and block
> ATS, instead of trying to ignore completion time out events, or trying
> to block page table mutations. Ie do what the implementation note
> says..
>
> Maybe:
>
> PCIe permits a device to ignore ATS invalidation TLPs while it is
> processing FLR. This creates a problem visible to the OS where ATS
> invalidation commands will time out. For instance a SVA domain will
> have no coordination with a FLR event and can racily issue ATC
> invalidations into a resetting device.
>
> The OS should do something to mitigate this as we do not want
> production systems to be reporting critical ATS failures, especially
> in a hypervisor environment. Broadly the OS could arrange to ignore
> the timeout, block page table mutations to prevent invalidations, or
> disable and block ATS.
>
> The PCIe spec in sec 10.3.1 IMPLEMENTATION NOTE recommends to disable
> and block ATS, and we already have iommu driver support to implement
> something like this. Implement this approach in the iommu core.
>
> Provide a callback from the PCI subsystem that will enclose the FLR
> and have the iommu core temporarily change all the domain attachments
> into BLOCKED. When attaching a BLOCKED domain IOMMU drivers should
> fence any incoming ATS queries, synchronously stop issuing new ATS
> invalidations, and synchronously wait for all ATS invalidations to
> complete. This will avoid any ATS invaliation time outs.
>
> IOMMU drivers may also disable ATS in PCI config space, but it is not
> required to solve the completion timeout problem. The PCI FLR logic
> will put all the iommu owned config space bits back before completing.
>
> During this period holding the group mutex will not allow new domains
> to be attached to prevent any new ATS invalidations.
Will pick this writing.
> > I guess I can see how messing with the domain attachment
> > underneath the rest of the group manages to prevent new invalidate requests
> > from group->domain being issued to the given function, but it's pretty
> > horrid - leaving the mutex blocked might be just about tolerable for an FLR
> > that's supposed to take no longer than 100ms, but what if we do want to do
> > this for suspend/resume as well?
>
> I don't view this a problem for FLR, we can hold a mutex for a long
> time. It principally delays domain changes which are kind of nonsense
> to be doing concurrently with FLR in the first place..
>
> However, for suspend, we probably want to leave a marker in the group
IIUIC, the thing for suspend/resume is that it would result in a
long hold of the mutex, which can be a problem?
> that the group is force-blocked and all domain attach/detach logic
> will only update the group tracking structures and not call into the
> iommu driver. When the resume happens the core will set the current
> group domain list to the iommu driver. No need for a long lived lock
> this way.
Yea, what we don't want is driver re-enabling ATS. So, bypassing
it at the core level should work. Then, iommu_dev_reset_prepare
and iommu_dev_reset_done will only mutex the flag.
Thanks
Nicolin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-10 20:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-09 18:45 [PATCH RFC v1 0/2] iommu&pci: Disable ATS during FLR resets Nicolin Chen
2025-06-09 18:45 ` [PATCH RFC v1 1/2] iommu: Introduce iommu_dev_reset_prepare() and iommu_dev_reset_done() Nicolin Chen
2025-06-10 4:26 ` Baolu Lu
2025-06-10 7:07 ` Nicolin Chen
2025-06-10 13:04 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-06-10 14:40 ` Robin Murphy
2025-06-10 15:36 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-06-10 16:31 ` Robin Murphy
2025-06-10 16:43 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-06-10 20:19 ` Nicolin Chen
2025-06-10 23:41 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-06-09 18:45 ` [PATCH RFC v1 2/2] pci: Suspend ATS before doing FLR Nicolin Chen
2025-06-10 4:27 ` Baolu Lu
2025-06-10 6:55 ` Nicolin Chen
2025-06-10 15:37 ` [PATCH RFC v1 0/2] iommu&pci: Disable ATS during FLR resets Robin Murphy
2025-06-10 16:30 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-06-10 20:36 ` Nicolin Chen [this message]
2025-06-10 23:43 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-06-13 19:27 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2025-06-13 21:10 ` Nicolin Chen
2025-06-16 13:09 ` 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=aEiXXYdhyeqcNiHX@nvidia.com \
--to=nicolinc@nvidia.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=patches@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=pjaroszynski@nvidia.com \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=vsethi@nvidia.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