Re: [PATCH RFCv1 07/14] iommufd: Add viommu set/unset_dev_id ops

Jason Gunthorpe
2024-05-21T18:24:55Z

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 06:59:07PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> So, you want a proxy S1 domain for a device to attach, in case
> of a stage-2 only setup, because an S2 domain will no longer has
> a VMID, since it's shared among viommus. In the SMMU driver case,
> an arm_smmu_domain won't have an smmu pointer, so a device can't
> attach to an S2 domain but always an nested S1 domain, right?

That seems like a simple solution to the VMID lifetime, but it means
the kernel has to decode more types of vSTE.

> > Functionally we could use that global nesting domain
> > to deliver the DEV_INVALIDATE too.
>
> If my narrative above is correct, the device is actually still
> attached to S2 domain via a proxy nested S1 domain. What cache
> do we need to invalidate except S2 mappings in this case?

qemu needs a reliable place to send the invalidation commands to (ie
what ID to provide).

If we add IOMMU_VIOMMU_INVALIDATE then the ID is the viommu id.

If we enhance IOMMU_HWPT_INVALIDATE then the ID is the identity
nesting domain.

Either case leads to the viommu object in the kernel.

I don't know if there is merit one way or the other. A more specific
API surface is nice, but the two APIs are completely duplicating.

So maybe:

#define IOMMU_VIOMMU_INVALIDATE IOMMU_HWPT_INVALIDATE

As documentation and have the kernel just detect based on the type of
the passed ID?

> > > So again, yes, it makes sense to me that we move viommu and the
> > > set_dev_id to the nested series, and then drop DEV_INVALIDATE.
> >
> > I would like to do this bit by bit. viommu is a big series on its own.
> >
> > DEV_INVALIDATE is fine, it just can't do ATS invalidation.
>
> I am not very sure about AMD.

AMD will need the same vRID -> pRID stuff and we want that to run on
the VIOMMU

> Same question: any other case can we use the DEV_INVALIDATE for?

DEV_INVALIDATE was interesting before the viommu idea because
userspace could process each invalidation command and when it reaches
ATS it would invoke the correct DEV_INVALIDATE.

With viommu we expect ATS supporting drivers to support viommu and
then to do vRID -> pRID in the other invalidation paths. In this case
I don't see a reason to do DEV_INVALIDATE right now.

> > We can add ATS invalidation after either as an enhancement as part of
> > adding the VIOMMU either as DEV_INVALIDATE or VIOMMU_INVALIDATE (or
> > both)
>
> Yea, maybe step by step like this:
>
> Part-1 VIOMMU_ALLOC and VIOMMU_ATTACH
> Part-2 VIOMMU_SET/UNSET_VDEV_ID
> Part-3 VIOMMU_INVALIDATE
> Part-4 VQUEUE_ALLOC
> ...

So we have this stuff still open:
- Identity STE with PASID (part 2b)
- IOMMU_GET_HW_INFO (part 3)
- IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_NEST_PARENT (part 3)
- IOMMU_HWPT_DATA_ARM_SMMUV3 (part 3)
- IOMMU_HWPT_INVALIDATE_DATA_ARM_SMMUV3
- VIOMMU_ALLOC, VIOMMU_ATTACH
- VIOMMU_INVALIDATE
- VIOMMU_SET/UNSET_VDEV_ID
- VQUEUE_ALLOC / vCMDQ

I feel like IOMMU_HWPT_INVALIDATE_DATA_ARM_SMMUV3 is a reasonable fit
to part 3. Then part 4 would be VIOMMU_ALLOC -> VIOMMU_SET/UNSET_VDEV_ID
which brings ATS support the API. vCMDQ hypervisor support would sit
on top of that with just VQUEUE?

Jason