Re: [PATCH v12 5/5] iommu/vt-d: improve ITE fault handling if target device isn't present

Ethan Zhao
2024-01-30T08:43:32Z

On 1/29/2024 10:48 PM, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 2024/1/29 17:06, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>> From: Ethan Zhao<haifeng.zhao@linux.intel.com>
>>> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 11:49 AM
>>>
>>> Because surprise removal could happen anytime, e.g. user could
>>> request safe
>>> removal to EP(endpoint device) via sysfs and brings its link down to do
>>> surprise removal cocurrently. such aggressive cases would cause ATS
>>> invalidation request issued to non-existence target device, then deadly
>>> loop to retry that request after ITE fault triggered in interrupt
>>> context.
>>> this patch aims to optimize the ITE handling by checking the target
>>> device
>>> presence state to avoid retrying the timeout request blindly, thus
>>> avoid
>>> hard lockup or system hang.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ethan Zhao<haifeng.zhao@linux.intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c
>>> index 814134e9aa5a..2e214b43725c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c
>>> @@ -1272,6 +1272,7 @@ static int qi_check_fault(struct intel_iommu
>>> *iommu, int index, int wait_index,
>>>   {
>>>       u32 fault;
>>>       int head, tail;
>>> +    u64 iqe_err, ite_sid;
>>>       struct q_inval *qi = iommu->qi;
>>>       int shift = qi_shift(iommu);
>>>
>>> @@ -1316,6 +1317,13 @@ static int qi_check_fault(struct intel_iommu
>>> *iommu, int index, int wait_index,
>>>           tail = readl(iommu->reg + DMAR_IQT_REG);
>>>           tail = ((tail >> shift) - 1 + QI_LENGTH) % QI_LENGTH;
>>>
>>> +        /*
>>> +         * SID field is valid only when the ITE field is Set in
>>> FSTS_REG
>>> +         * see Intel VT-d spec r4.1, section 11.4.9.9
>>> +         */
>>> +        iqe_err = dmar_readq(iommu->reg + DMAR_IQER_REG);
>>> +        ite_sid = DMAR_IQER_REG_ITESID(iqe_err);
>>> +
>>>           writel(DMA_FSTS_ITE, iommu->reg + DMAR_FSTS_REG);
>>>           pr_info("Invalidation Time-out Error (ITE) cleared\n");
>>>
>>> @@ -1325,6 +1333,16 @@ static int qi_check_fault(struct intel_iommu
>>> *iommu, int index, int wait_index,
>>>               head = (head - 2 + QI_LENGTH) % QI_LENGTH;
>>>           } while (head != tail);
>>>
>>> +        /*
>>> +         * If got ITE, we need to check if the sid of ITE is the
>>> same as
>>> +         * current ATS invalidation target device, if yes, don't
>>> try this
>>> +         * request anymore if the target device isn't present.
>>> +         * 0 value of ite_sid means old VT-d device, no ite_sid value.
>>> +         */
>>> +        if (pdev && ite_sid && !pci_device_is_present(pdev) &&
>>> +            ite_sid == pci_dev_id(pci_physfn(pdev)))
>>> +            return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>> +
>> since the hardware already reports source id leading to timeout,
>> can't we
>> just find the pci_dev according to reported ite_sid? this is a slow
>> path (either
>> due to device in bad state or removed) hence it's not necessary to
>> add more
>> intelligence to pass the pci_dev in, leading to only a partial fix
>> can be backported.
>>
>> It's also more future-proof, say if one day the driver allows
>> batching invalidation
>> requests for multiple devices then no need to pass in a list of devices.
>
> I have ever thought about this solution and gave up in the end due to
> the locking issue.
>
> A batch of qi requests must be handled in the spin lock critical region
> to enforce that only one batch of requests is submitted at a time.
> Searching pci_dev in this locking region might result in nested locking
> issues, and I haven't found a good solution for this yet.
>
You said async-interrupt model is a bad idea, how bad is it ? I wonder if
the hardware and VT-d spec definition could support it pefectly or not.
at least, would never get in trouble about balance timeout & wakeup
watchdog.

Yes, the VT-d DMAR driver wasn't inited as async-interrupt model from
begnining...

Thanks,
Ethan

> Unless someone can bring up a better solution, perhaps we have to live
> in a world where only single device TLB invalidation request in a batch
> could be submitted to the queue.
>
> Best regards,
> baolu