RE: [PATCH v7 7/9] iommu/vt-d: Allow qi_submit_sync() to return the QI faults

Tian, Kevin
2023-12-28T05:39:07Z

> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2023 10:13 PM
>
> On 2023/12/27 17:33, Ethan Zhao wrote:
> >
> > On 12/27/2023 5:06 PM, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2023 4:44 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 7/9] iommu/vt-d: Allow qi_submit_sync() to
> return
> >>> the QI faults
> >>>
> >>> On 2023/12/26 14:15, Yi Liu wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2023/12/26 12:13, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >>>>>> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2023 12:03 PM
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2023/12/22 12:23, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >>>>>>>> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
> >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2023 11:40 PM
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +    fault &= DMA_FSTS_IQE | DMA_FSTS_ITE | DMA_FSTS_ICE;
> >>>>>>>> +    if (fault) {
> >>>>>>>> +        if (fsts)
> >>>>>>>> +            *fsts |= fault;
> >>>>>>> do we expect the fault to be accumulated? otherwise it's clearer to
> >>>>>>> just do direct assignment instead of asking for the caller to clear
> >>>>>>> the variable before invocation.
> >>>>>> not quite get. do you mean the fault should not be cleared in the
> caller
> >>>>>> side?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I meant:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>      if (fsts)
> >>>>>          *fsts = fault;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> unless there is a reason to *OR* the original value.
> >>>> I guess no such a reason. :) let me modify it.
> >>> hmmm, replied too soon. The qi_check_fault() would be called multiple
> >>> times in one invalidation circle as qi_submit_sync() needs to see if any
> >>> fault happened before the hw writes back QI_DONE to the wait
> descriptor.
> >>> There can be ICE which may eventually result in ITE. So caller of
> >>> qi_check_fault()
> >>> would continue to wait for QI_DONE. So qi_check_fault() returns 0 to let
> >>> qi_submit_sync() go on though ICE detected. If we use '*fsts = fault;',
> >>> then ICE would be missed since the input fsts pointer is the same in
> >>> one qi_submit_sync() call.
> >> Is it necessary to return fault to user if qi_check_fault() return
> >> -EAGAIN and
> >> a restart run succeeds?
>
> no need if a restart succeeds. I would add a *fault = 0 per the restart.
>
> >
> > Issue a device-TLB invalidation to no response device there is possibility
> >
> > will be trapped there loop for ITE , never get return.
>
> yes. This the implementation today, in future I think we may need a kind
> of timeout mechanism, so that it can return and report the error to user.
> In concept, in nested translation, the page table is owned by userspace, so
> it makes more sense to let userspace know it and take proper action.
>

it doesn't make sense to retry upon an invalidation request from userspace.
if retry is required that is the policy of guest iommu driver. Also it's not
good to introduce a uapi flag which won't be set by current driver.

this can be solved by a simple change in qi_check_fault():

if (qi->desc_status[wait_index] == QI_ABORT)
- return -EAGAIN;
+ return fsts ? -ETIMEDOUT : -EAGAIN;

because if the caller wants to know the fault reason the implication
is that the caller will decide how to cope with the fault. It is incorrect
for qi_check_fault() to decide.