From: Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@google.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc: iommu@lists.linux.dev, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org>,
Moritz Fischer <moritzf@google.com>,
Michael Shavit <mshavit@google.com>,
Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>,
patches@lists.linux.dev,
Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/9] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Make CD programming use arm_smmu_write_entry()
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 22:08:57 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zi13eaOCQFdMO1ut@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240422132954.GB49823@nvidia.com>
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 10:29:54AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 09:07:19PM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote:
> > > - cdptr = arm_smmu_get_cd_ptr(master, ssid);
> > > - if (!cdptr)
> > > + cd_table_entry = arm_smmu_get_cd_ptr(master, ssid);
> > > + if (!cd_table_entry)
> > > return -ENOMEM;
> > >
> > > + target = *cd_table_entry;
> >
> > As this changes the logic where all CD manipulation is not on the actual
> > CD, I believe a comment would be helpful here.
>
> This is all deleted in a few patches, doesn't seem worth it to
> me. These steps exist only for bisection.
>
> > > @@ -1299,18 +1357,14 @@ int arm_smmu_write_ctx_desc(struct arm_smmu_master *master, int ssid,
> > > if (cd_table->stall_enabled)
> > > val |= CTXDESC_CD_0_S;
> > > }
> > > -
> > > + cdptr->data[0] = cpu_to_le64(val);
> > > /*
> > > - * The SMMU accesses 64-bit values atomically. See IHI0070Ca 3.21.3
> > > - * "Configuration structures and configuration invalidation completion"
> > > - *
> > > - * The size of single-copy atomic reads made by the SMMU is
> > > - * IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED but must be at least 64 bits. Any single
> > > - * field within an aligned 64-bit span of a structure can be altered
> > > - * without first making the structure invalid.
> > > + * Since the above is updating the CD entry based on the current value
> > > + * without zeroing unused bits it needs fixing before being passed to
> > > + * the programming logic.
> > > */
> > > - WRITE_ONCE(cdptr->data[0], cpu_to_le64(val));
> > > - arm_smmu_sync_cd(master, ssid, true);
> > > + arm_smmu_clean_cd_entry(&target);
> >
> > I am not sure I understand the logic here, is that only needed for entry[0]
> > As I see the other entries are set and not reused.
>
> I'm not sure what you are asking?
>
> The issue is the old logic constructs the new CD by manipulating the
> existing CD in various ways "in place" that ends up creating CDs that
> don't meet the requirements for the new programmer. For instance EPD0
> will be set and the TTB0 will also be left programmed.
>
I see, but what I don’t understand is why doesn't the function construct
the CD correctly, as from
} else if (cd == &quiet_cd) { /* (4) */
if (!(smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_STALL_FORCE))
val &= ~(CTXDESC_CD_0_S | CTXDESC_CD_0_R);
val |= CTXDESC_CD_0_TCR_EPD0;
// populate the rest of the CD correctly here.
}
As I don’t think the right approach is to populate the CD incorrectly
and then clear the parts not needed for EPD0.
Also, TTB0 is ignored anyway in that case, no?
Thanks,
Mostafa
> > If so, I think it’d be better to make that clear, also as used_bits
> > are always 0xff for all cases, I believe the EPD0 logic should be
> > integrated in populating the CD so it is correct by construction, as
> > this looks like a hack to me.
>
> Yes, this is what happens, in a few more steps. We have to go and
> build the missing make functions first.
>
> There is a bit of a circular problem here: the new scheme expects that
> the CD is only programmed by the new scheme and follows the rules - eg
> no unused bits set. While the old scheme doesn't follow the rules.
>
> So this patch makes the old scheme follow the rules and be compatible
> with the new scheme then we go place by place and convert to the new
> scheme. Then we remove the old scheme entirely. Look at the "Move the
> CD generation for SVA into a function" patch.
>
> Yes, this is a minimal hack to let the next few patches work out
> correctly without breaking bisection.
>
> How about a new commit message:
>
> iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Make CD programming use arm_smmu_write_entry()
>
> CD table entries and STE's have the same essential programming sequence,
> just with different types. Use the new ops indirection to link CD
> programming to the common writer.
>
> In a few more patches all CD writers will call an appropriate make
> function and then directly call arm_smmu_write_cd_entry().
> arm_smmu_write_ctx_desc() will be removed.
>
> Until then lightly tweak arm_smmu_write_ctx_desc() to also use the new
> programmer by using the same logic as right now to build the target CD on
> the stack, sanitizing it to meet the used rules, and then using the
> writer.
>
> This is necessary because the writer expects that the currently programmed
> CD follows the used rules. Next patches add new make functions and new
> direct calls to arm_smmu_write_cd_entry() which will require this.
>
> Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-27 22:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-16 19:28 [PATCH v7 0/9] Make the SMMUv3 CD logic match the new STE design (part 2a/3) Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-16 19:28 ` [PATCH v7 1/9] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add an ops indirection to the STE code Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-16 20:18 ` Nicolin Chen
2024-04-19 21:02 ` Mostafa Saleh
2024-04-22 13:09 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-16 19:28 ` [PATCH v7 2/9] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Make CD programming use arm_smmu_write_entry() Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-16 20:48 ` Nicolin Chen
2024-04-18 13:01 ` Robin Murphy
2024-04-18 16:08 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-19 21:07 ` Mostafa Saleh
2024-04-22 13:29 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-27 22:08 ` Mostafa Saleh [this message]
2024-04-29 14:29 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-29 15:30 ` Mostafa Saleh
2024-04-16 19:28 ` [PATCH v7 3/9] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Move the CD generation for S1 domains into a function Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-16 21:22 ` Nicolin Chen
2024-04-19 21:10 ` Mostafa Saleh
2024-04-22 13:52 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-16 19:28 ` [PATCH v7 4/9] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Consolidate clearing a CD table entry Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-16 19:28 ` [PATCH v7 5/9] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Make arm_smmu_alloc_cd_ptr() Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-16 22:19 ` Nicolin Chen
2024-04-19 21:14 ` Mostafa Saleh
2024-04-22 14:20 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-27 22:19 ` Mostafa Saleh
2024-04-29 14:01 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-29 14:47 ` Mostafa Saleh
2024-04-29 14:55 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-16 19:28 ` [PATCH v7 6/9] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Allocate the CD table entry in advance Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-16 19:28 ` [PATCH v7 7/9] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Move the CD generation for SVA into a function Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-17 7:37 ` Nicolin Chen
2024-04-17 13:17 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-17 16:25 ` Nicolin Chen
2024-04-17 16:26 ` Nicolin Chen
2024-04-18 4:40 ` Michael Shavit
2024-04-18 14:28 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-16 19:28 ` [PATCH v7 8/9] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Build the whole CD in arm_smmu_make_s1_cd() Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-17 7:43 ` Nicolin Chen
2024-04-16 19:28 ` [PATCH v7 9/9] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add unit tests for arm_smmu_write_entry Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-17 8:09 ` Nicolin Chen
2024-04-17 14:16 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-17 16:13 ` Nicolin Chen
2024-04-18 4:39 ` Michael Shavit
2024-04-18 12:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-18 14:34 ` Michael Shavit
2024-04-19 21:24 ` Mostafa Saleh
2024-04-22 14:24 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2024-04-27 22:33 ` Mostafa Saleh
2024-04-16 19:40 ` [PATCH v7 0/9] Make the SMMUv3 CD logic match the new STE design (part 2a/3) Nicolin Chen
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=Zi13eaOCQFdMO1ut@google.com \
--to=smostafa@google.com \
--cc=eric.auger@redhat.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mdf@kernel.org \
--cc=moritzf@google.com \
--cc=mshavit@google.com \
--cc=nicolinc@nvidia.com \
--cc=patches@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.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