Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] iommufd: Add data structure for Intel VT-d stage-1 cache invalidation

Yi Liu
2024-01-09T05:57:32Z

On 2024/1/8 12:07, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
>> Sent: Friday, January 5, 2024 10:45 PM
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 02:52:50AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>> but in reality the relation could be identified in an easy way due to a SIOV
>>>> restriction which we discussed before - shared PASID space of PF
>> disallows
>>>> assigning sibling vdev's to a same VM (otherwise no way to identify which
>>>> sibling vdev triggering an iopf when a pasid is used on both vdev's). That
>>>> restriction implies that within an iommufd context every iommufd_device
>>>> object should contain a unique struct device pointer. So PASID can be
>>>> instead ignored in the lookup then just always do iommufd_get_dev_id()
>>>> using struct device.
>>>
>>> A bit more background.
>>>
>>> Previously we thought this restriction only applies to SIOV+vSVA, as
>>> a guest process may bind to both sibling vdev's, leading to the same
>>> pasid situation.
>>>
>>> In concept w/o vSVA it's still possible to assign sibling vdev's to
>>> a same VM as each vdev is allocated with a unique pasid to mark vRID
>>> so can be differentiated from each other in the fault/error path.
>>
>> I thought the SIOV plan was that each "vdev" ie vpci function would
>> get a slice of the pRID's PASID space statically selected at creation?
>>
>> So SVA/etc doesn't matter, you reliably get a disjoint set of pRID &
>> pPASID into each VM.
>>
>> From that view you can't identify the iommufd dev_id without knowing
>> both the pRID and pPASID which will disambiguate the different SIOV
>> iommufd dev_id instances sharing a rid.
>
> true when assigning those instances to different VMs.
>
> Here I was talking about assigning them to a same VM being a problem.
> with rid sharing plus same ENQCMD pPASID potentially used on both
> instances there'd be ambiguity in vSVA e.g. iopf to identify dev_id.
>
> we agreed before on preventing sibling vdev's in one VM for above
> reason, but only as far as vSVA is concerned.
>
> then given the new finding in err reporting I wondered whether this
> restriction should be applied to all SIOV scenarios (but irrelevant now
> with below explanation after another thinking)
>
>>
>>> But when looking at this err code issue with Yi closely, we found
>>> there is another gap in the VT-d spec. Upon devtlb invalidation
>>> timeout the hw doesn't report pasid in the error info register. this
>>> makes it impossible to identify the source vdev if a hwpt invalidation
>>> request involves sibling vdev's from a same PF.
>>
>> Don't you know which command timed out?
>
> unfortunately no.
>
> for errors related to descriptor fetch the driver can tell the command
> by looking at the head pointer of the invalidation queue.
>
> command completion is indirectly detected by inserting a wait descriptor
> as fence. completion timeout error is reported in an error register. but
> this register doesn't record pasid, nor does the command location. if there
> are multiple pending devtlb invalidation commands upon timeout
> error the spec suggests the driver to treat all of them timeout as the
> register can only record one rid.
>
> this is kind of moot. If the driver submits only one command (plus wait)
> at a time it doesn't need hw's help to identify the timeout command.
> If the driver batches invalidation commands it must treat all timeout if
> an timeout error is reported.
>
> from this angle whether to record pasid doesn't really matter.
>
> intel-iommu driver doesn't batch commands. so it's possible for
> the driver to figure out the timeout device itself and identify rid plus
> pasid to find dev_id from iommufd.

based on this, even RID is unnecessary. Software should know which device
it has sent a devTLB invalidation.

--
Regards,
Yi Liu