From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ED14C433DF for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 16:30:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A320204EC for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 16:30:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="ij2Zhtun" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1A320204EC Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:56180 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jqJ9H-0003m5-9i for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 12:30:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56488) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jqJ8J-0002ZC-Fc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 12:29:19 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.81]:57882 helo=us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jqJ8H-00051e-TI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 12:29:19 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1593534557; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Iki+3wFuolN8flHlcoZTKxF/AtY4NLWFToDzLtfW0sU=; b=ij2ZhtunDTI8UmJPgrsG4ytCSl5p3bb5L6Dy4RSV0/hqUyK61ChuBKCMzSzfaRMEJTWTvr u+2uEASJiePn+/Nw5lLRc3/atlAI8mHTFuJ1bxSsqzPxqQIcI7D3kLhPaaDgbM0NTzFA/7 FOnHgHXRVgFLc8wjJd6QmFllSLtjxSY= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-149-DJ-BRuTZM1O7V9aFBB8cEA-1; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 12:29:15 -0400 X-MC-Unique: DJ-BRuTZM1O7V9aFBB8cEA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5ED8F1005513; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 16:29:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.112.70] (ovpn-112-70.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.70]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DD4C5D9DC; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 16:29:04 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 6/9] hw/arm/smmu-common: Manage IOTLB block entries To: Peter Maydell References: <20200611161500.23580-1-eric.auger@redhat.com> <20200611161500.23580-7-eric.auger@redhat.com> From: Auger Eric Message-ID: <0936903d-109f-c9cf-b40e-767fe7a21dae@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 18:29:02 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=eric.auger@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=207.211.31.81; envelope-from=eric.auger@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/06/30 02:00:02 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -30 X-Spam_score: -3.1 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Jean-Philippe Brucker , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Will Deacon , zhangfei.gao@foxmail.com, QEMU Developers , Peter Xu , qemu-arm , Shameerali Kolothum Thodi , Robin Murphy , Rob Herring , Eric Auger Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Hi Peter, On 6/30/20 5:50 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 14:53, Auger Eric wrote: >> On 6/25/20 5:30 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> Rather than looping around doing multiple hash table lookups like >>> this, why not just avoid including the tg and level in the >>> key equality test? >>> >>> If I understand the range-based-invalidation feature correctly, >>> the only time we care about the TG/LVL is if we're processing >>> an invalidate-range command that specifies them. But in that >>> case there should never be multiple entries in the bs->iotlb >>> with the same iova, so we can just check whether the entry >>> matches the requested TG/LVL once we've pulled it out of the >>> hash table. (Or we could architecturally validly just blow >>> it away regardless of requested TG/LVL -- they are only hints, >>> not required-to-match.) >> >> This change could have been done independently on the RIL feature. As we >> now put block entries in the IOTLB , when we look for an iova >> translation, the IOVA can be mapped using different block sizes or using >> page entries. So we start looking at blocks of the bigger size (entry >> level) downto the page, for instance 4TB/512MB/64KB. We cannot know >> which block and size the address belongs to. > > Yes, but we wouldn't need to care which TG and LVL the > address belongs to if we didn't put them into > the key, would we? I'm probably missing something here, but > just because the hardware might want to use the hints in > the invalidation-command about TG and LVL doesn't inherently > mean QEMU is most efficient if it cares about the hints. OK I think I understand your point now. It is not necessary to put TG/LVL in the key as log as they are in the entry. I will look at this implementation ... Thanks Eric > > thanks > -- PMM >