From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
To: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@intel.com>, iommu@lists.linux.dev
Cc: baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] iommu/vt-d: Remove caching mode check before device TLB flush
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 18:38:00 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <776ef2f1-747d-46f0-94be-747c6fca8ce0@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <be0b254d-d6c0-4a94-8234-936f40538bbc@intel.com>
On 2024/4/10 17:14, Yi Liu wrote:
>
>
> On 2024/4/10 16:02, Baolu Lu wrote:
>> On 2024/4/10 14:30, Yi Liu wrote:
>>> On 2024/4/10 13:58, Lu Baolu wrote:
>>>> The Caching Mode (CM) of the Intel IOMMU indicates if the hardware
>>>> implementation caches not-present or erroneous translation-structure
>>>> entries except the first-stage translation. The caching mode is
>>>> irrelevant to the device TLB , therefore there is no need to check
>>>> it before a device TLB invalidation operation.
>>>>
>>>> iommu_flush_iotlb_psi() is called in map and unmap paths. The caching
>>>> mode check before device TLB invalidation will cause device TLB
>>>> invalidation always issued if IOMMU is not running in caching mode.
>>>> This is wrong and causes unnecessary performance overhead.
>>>
>>> I don't think the original code is wrong. As I replied before, if CM==0,
>>> the iommu_flush_iotlb_psi() is only called in unmap path, in which the
>>> @map is false. [1] The reason to make the change is to make the logic
>>> simpler. 🙂
>>
>> Oh, I see. There is a magic
>>
>> if (cap_caching_mode(iommu->cap) && !domain->use_first_level)
>> iommu_flush_iotlb_psi(iommu, domain, pfn, pages, 0, 1);
>>
>> in __mapping_notify_one().
>>
>> So if it's caching mode, then
>>
>> - iommu_flush_iotlb_psi() will be called with @map=1 from
>> __mapping_notify_one(), "!cap_caching_mode(iommu->cap) || !map" is
>> not true, and device TLB is not invalidated.
>> - iommu_flush_iotlb_psi() will also be called with @map=0 from
>> intel_iommu_tlb_sync(), device TLB is issued there.
>>
>> That's the expected behavior for caching mode.
>>
>> If it's not the caching mode, then
>>
>> - iommu_flush_iotlb_psi() will be called with @map=0 from
>> intel_iommu_tlb_sync(), device TLB is issued there.
>>
>> That's also the expected behavior.
>>
>> So the existing code is correct but obscure and difficult to understand,
>> right? If so, we should make this patch as a cleanup rather than a fix.
>
> aha, yes. As the below table, iommu_flush_iotlb_psi() does flush device TLB
> as expected. But there is a NA case. When CM==0, it should not be possible
> to call iommu_flush_iotlb_psi() with @map==1 as cache invalidation is not
> required when CM==0. So the existing code logic is really confusing,
> checking @map is enough and clearer. Since the old code works, so perhaps
> no fix tag is needed. :)
>
> +----+------+-----------+------------+
> | \ | | |
> | \ @map | | |
> | CM \ | 0 | 1 |
> | \ | | |
> +------+---+------------+------------+
> | | | |
> | 0 | Y | NA |
> +----------+------------+------------+
> | | | |
> | 1 | Y | N |
> +----------+------------+------------+
>
> Y means flush dev-TLB please
> N means no need to flush dev-TLB
> NA means not applied
Yes. We have the same understanding now. :-)
>
> BTW. I think it is better to have the below change in a separate patch.
> The below change does fix a improper dev-TLB flushing behavior. Also
> how about Kevin's concern in the end of [1]. I didn't see your respond
> about it.
I had an offline discussion with him and I included the conclusion in
the commit message of this patch.
Best regards,
baolu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-10 10:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-10 5:58 [PATCH v2 1/1] iommu/vt-d: Remove caching mode check before device TLB flush Lu Baolu
2024-04-10 6:14 ` Tian, Kevin
2024-04-10 6:30 ` Yi Liu
2024-04-10 8:02 ` Baolu Lu
2024-04-10 9:14 ` Yi Liu
2024-04-10 10:38 ` Baolu Lu [this message]
2024-04-12 9:34 ` Yi Liu
2024-04-11 13:13 ` Robin Murphy
2024-04-11 13:48 ` Baolu Lu
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=776ef2f1-747d-46f0-94be-747c6fca8ce0@linux.intel.com \
--to=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yi.l.liu@intel.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