Re: [PATCH v4 09/10] iommu: Make iommu_queue_iopf() more generic

Jean-Philippe Brucker
2023-08-30T19:03:18Z

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 04:32:47PM +0530, Vasant Hegde wrote:
> Tian, Baolu,
>
> On 8/30/2023 1:13 PM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
> >> Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2023 4:01 PM
> >>
> >> On 8/25/23 4:17 PM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >>>> +
> >>>> /**
> >>>> * iopf_queue_flush_dev - Ensure that all queued faults have been
> >>>> processed
> >>>> * @dev: the endpoint whose faults need to be flushed.
> >>> Presumably we also need a flush callback per domain given now
> >>> the use of workqueue is optional then flush_workqueue() might
> >>> not be sufficient.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The iopf_queue_flush_dev() function flushes all pending faults from the
> >> IOMMU queue for a specific device. It has no means to flush fault queues
> >> out of iommu core.
> >>
> >> The iopf_queue_flush_dev() function is typically called when a domain is
> >> detaching from a PASID. Hence it's necessary to flush the pending faults
> >> from top to bottom. For example, iommufd should flush pending faults in
> >> its fault queues after detaching the domain from the pasid.
> >>
> >
> > Is there an ordering problem? The last step of intel_svm_drain_prq()
> > in the detaching path issues a set of descriptors to drain page requests
> > and responses in hardware. It cannot complete if not all software queues
> > are drained and it's counter-intuitive to drain a software queue after
> > the hardware draining has already been completed.
> >
> > btw just flushing requests is probably insufficient in iommufd case since
> > the responses are received asynchronously. It requires an interface to
> > drain both requests and responses (presumably with timeouts in case
> > of a malicious guest which never responds) in the detach path.
> >
> > it's not a problem for sva as responses are synchrounsly delivered after
> > handling mm fault. So fine to not touch it in this series but certainly
> > this area needs more work when moving to support iommufd. 😊
> >
> > btw why is iopf_queue_flush_dev() called only in intel-iommu driver?
> > Isn't it a common requirement for all sva-capable drivers?

It's not needed by the SMMUv3 driver because it doesn't implement PRI yet,
only the Arm-specific stall fault model where DMA transactions are held in
the SMMU while waiting for the OS to handle IOPFs. Since a device driver
must complete all DMA transactions before calling unbind(), with the stall
model there are no pending IOPFs to flush on unbind(). PRI support with
Stop Markers would add a call to iopf_queue_flush_dev() after flushing the
SMMU PRI queue [2].

Moving the flush to the core shouldn't be a problem, as long as the driver
gets a chance to flush the hardware queue first.

Thanks,
Jean

[2] https://jpbrucker.net/git/linux/commit/?h=sva/2020-12-14&id=bba76fb4ec631bec96f98f14a6cd13b2df81e5ce

>
> I had same question when we did SVA implementation for AMD IOMMU [1]. Currently
> we call queue_flush from remove_dev_pasid() path. Since PASID can be enabled
> without ATS/PRI, I thought its individual drivers responsibility.
> But looking this series, does it make sense to handle queue_flush in core layer?
>
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20230823140415.729050-1-vasant.hegde@amd.com/T/#t
>
> -Vasant
>
>