Re: [PATCH v1 01/10] powerpc/pseries/iommu: Replace hard-coded page shift

Leonardo Bras
2020-08-28T19:55:37Z

On Fri, 2020-08-28 at 12:27 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>
> On 28/08/2020 01:32, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > Hello Alexey, thank you for this feedback!
> >
> > On Sat, 2020-08-22 at 19:33 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> > > > +#define TCE_RPN_BITS 52 /* Bits 0-51 represent RPN on TCE */
> > >
> > > Ditch this one and use MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS instead? I am pretty sure this
> > > is the actual limit.
> >
> > I understand this MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS(51) comes from the maximum physical memory addressable in the machine. IIUC, it means we can access physical address up to (1ul << MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS).
> >
> > This 52 comes from PAPR "Table 9. TCE Definition" which defines bits
> > 0-51 as the RPN. By looking at code, I understand that it means we may input any address < (1ul << 52) to TCE.
> >
> > In practice, MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS should be enough as of today, because I suppose we can't ever pass a physical page address over
> > (1ul << 51), and TCE accepts up to (1ul << 52).
> > But if we ever increase MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS, it doesn't necessarily means that TCE_RPN_BITS will also be increased, so I think they are independent values.
> >
> > Does it make sense? Please let me know if I am missing something.
>
> The underlying hardware is PHB3/4 about which the IODA2 Version 2.4
> 6Apr2012.pdf spec says:
>
> "The number of most significant RPN bits implemented in the TCE is
> dependent on the max size of System Memory to be supported by the platform".
>
> IODA3 is the same on this matter.
>
> This is MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS and PHB itself does not have any other limits
> on top of that. So the only real limit comes from MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS and
> where TCE_RPN_BITS comes from exactly - I have no idea.

Well, I created this TCE_RPN_BITS = 52 because the previous mask was a
hardcoded 40-bit mask (0xfffffffffful), for hard-coded 12-bit (4k)
pagesize, and on PAPR+/LoPAR also defines TCE as having bits 0-51
described as RPN, as described before.

IODA3 Revision 3.0_prd1 (OpenPowerFoundation), Figure 3.4 and 3.5.
shows system memory mapping into a TCE, and the TCE also has bits 0-51
for the RPN (52 bits). "Table 3.6. TCE Definition" also shows it.

In fact, by the looks of those figures, the RPN_MASK should always be a
52-bit mask, and RPN = (page >> tceshift) & RPN_MASK.

Maybe that's it?

>
>
> > >
> > > > +#define TCE_RPN_MASK(ps) ((1ul << (TCE_RPN_BITS - (ps))) - 1)
> > > > #define TCE_VALID 0x800 /* TCE valid */
> > > > #define TCE_ALLIO 0x400 /* TCE valid for all lpars */
> > > > #define TCE_PCI_WRITE 0x2 /* write from PCI allowed */
> > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
> > > > index e4198700ed1a..8fe23b7dff3a 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
> > > > @@ -107,6 +107,9 @@ static int tce_build_pSeries(struct iommu_table *tbl, long index,
> > > > u64 proto_tce;
> > > > __be64 *tcep;
> > > > u64 rpn;
> > > > + const unsigned long tceshift = tbl->it_page_shift;
> > > > + const unsigned long pagesize = IOMMU_PAGE_SIZE(tbl);
> > > > + const u64 rpn_mask = TCE_RPN_MASK(tceshift);
> > >
> > > Using IOMMU_PAGE_SIZE macro for the page size and not using
> > > IOMMU_PAGE_MASK for the mask - this incosistency makes my small brain
> > > explode :) I understand the history but maaaaan... Oh well, ok.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, it feels kind of weird after two IOMMU related consts. :)
> > But sure IOMMU_PAGE_MASK() would not be useful here :)
> >
> > And this kind of let me thinking:
> > > > + rpn = __pa(uaddr) >> tceshift;
> > > > + *tcep = cpu_to_be64(proto_tce | (rpn & rpn_mask) << tceshift);
> > Why not:
> > rpn_mask = TCE_RPN_MASK(tceshift) << tceshift;
>
> A mask for a page number (but not the address!) hurts my brain, masks
> are good against addresses but numbers should already have all bits
> adjusted imho, may be it is just me :-/
>
>
> >
> > rpn = __pa(uaddr) & rpn_mask;
> > *tcep = cpu_to_be64(proto_tce | rpn)
> >
> > I am usually afraid of changing stuff like this, but I think it's safe.
> >
> > > Good, otherwise. Thanks,
> >
> > Thank you for reviewing!
> >
> >
> >