From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev,
Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
vasant.hegde@amd.com, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
jon.grimm@amd.com, santosh.shukla@amd.com, pandoh@google.com,
kumaranand@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 05/10] iommu/amd: Introduce helper function to update 256-bit DTE
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 09:20:31 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241113132031.GF35230@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cac1ccd3-4b81-4374-a49d-9afad755b19c@app.fastmail.com>
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 01:50:14PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024, at 13:03, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> >
> > +static void write_dte_upper128(struct dev_table_entry *ptr, struct
> > dev_table_entry *new)
> > +{
> > + struct dev_table_entry old = {};
> > +
> > + old.data128[1] = __READ_ONCE(ptr->data128[1]);
>
> The __READ_ONCE() in place of READ_ONCE() does make this a
> lot simpler. After seeing how it is used though, I wonder if
> this should just be an open-coded volatile pointer access
> to avoid complicating __unqual_scalar_typeof() further.
I've been skeptical we even need the READ_ONCE. This is all under a
lock, what is READ_ONCE even protecting against? It is safe to double
read.
> > + do {
> > + /*
> > + * Preserve DTE_DATA2_INTR_MASK. This needs to be
> > + * done here since it requires to be inside
> > + * spin_lock(&dev_data->dte_lock) context.
> > + */
> > + new->data[2] &= ~DTE_DATA2_INTR_MASK;
> > + new->data[2] |= old.data[2] & DTE_DATA2_INTR_MASK;
> > +
> > + /* Note: try_cmpxchg inherently update &old.data128[1] on failure */
> > + } while (!try_cmpxchg128(&ptr->data128[1], &old.data128[1],
> > new->data128[1]));
>
> Since this is always done under the lock, is there ever
> a chance that the try_cmpxchg128() fails?
No, but if something goes wrong and it does fail it still has to
progress.
> I see that the existing code doesn't have the loop, which makes
> sense if this is just meant to be an atomic store.
I think AMD architecture imagined this would be done with a SSE 256
bit store operation. cmpxchg128 is sort of a hacky stand in since we
don't have that available.
A more understandable version of all of this might be to have a
store128 wrapper function that invokes cmpxchg internally and
guarantees the new value is stored regardless.
How hard would it be to invoke the SSE 256 bit store instruction from
the kernel? And do all AMD CPUs with IOMMU have it?
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-13 13:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-13 12:03 [PATCH v10 00/10] iommu/amd: Use 128-bit cmpxchg operation to update DTE Suravee Suthikulpanit
2024-11-13 12:03 ` [PATCH v10 01/10] iommu/amd: Misc ACPI IVRS debug info clean up Suravee Suthikulpanit
2024-11-13 12:03 ` [PATCH v10 02/10] iommu/amd: Disable AMD IOMMU if CMPXCHG16B feature is not supported Suravee Suthikulpanit
2024-11-13 12:35 ` Arnd Bergmann
2024-11-13 12:03 ` [PATCH v10 03/10] compiler_types.h: Introduce 128-bit unqualified scalar type support Suravee Suthikulpanit
2024-11-13 12:03 ` [PATCH v10 04/10] iommu/amd: Introduce struct ivhd_dte_flags to store persistent DTE flags Suravee Suthikulpanit
2024-11-13 12:03 ` [PATCH v10 05/10] iommu/amd: Introduce helper function to update 256-bit DTE Suravee Suthikulpanit
2024-11-13 12:50 ` Arnd Bergmann
2024-11-13 13:20 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2024-11-13 14:06 ` Uros Bizjak
2024-11-13 14:09 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2024-11-13 14:14 ` Uros Bizjak
2024-11-13 14:28 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2024-11-13 14:36 ` Uros Bizjak
2024-11-13 16:34 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2024-11-13 19:50 ` Uros Bizjak
2024-11-13 20:08 ` Uros Bizjak
2024-11-14 16:29 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2024-11-14 20:25 ` Uros Bizjak
2024-11-13 12:03 ` [PATCH v10 06/10] iommu/amd: Modify set_dte_entry() to use 256-bit DTE helpers Suravee Suthikulpanit
2024-11-13 12:03 ` [PATCH v10 07/10] iommu/amd: Introduce helper function get_dte256() Suravee Suthikulpanit
2024-11-13 12:03 ` [PATCH v10 08/10] iommu/amd: Modify clear_dte_entry() to avoid in-place update Suravee Suthikulpanit
2024-11-13 12:03 ` [PATCH v10 09/10] iommu/amd: Lock DTE before updating the entry with WRITE_ONCE() Suravee Suthikulpanit
2024-11-13 12:03 ` [PATCH v10 10/10] iommu/amd: Remove amd_iommu_apply_erratum_63() Suravee Suthikulpanit
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=20241113132031.GF35230@nvidia.com \
--to=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=jon.grimm@amd.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=kumaranand@google.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pandoh@google.com \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=santosh.shukla@amd.com \
--cc=suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com \
--cc=ubizjak@gmail.com \
--cc=vasant.hegde@amd.com \
/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