On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 15:08:33 +0100
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 06:17:26PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 19:23:58 +0100
> > Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@xxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > The SMMU provides a Stall model for handling page faults in platform
> > > devices. It is similar to PCI PRI, but doesn't require devices to have
> > > their own translation cache. Instead, faulting transactions are parked and
> > > the OS is given a chance to fix the page tables and retry the transaction.
> > >
> > > Enable stall for devices that support it (opt-in by firmware). When an
> > > event corresponds to a translation error, call the IOMMU fault handler. If
> > > the fault is recoverable, it will call us back to terminate or continue
> > > the stall.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > One question inline.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > > ---
> > > drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 271 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > drivers/iommu/of_iommu.c | 5 +-
> > > include/linux/iommu.h | 2 +
> > > 3 files changed, 269 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
> > > index 6a5987cce03f..da5dda5ba26a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
> > > @@ -374,6 +374,13 @@
> >
> >
> > > +/*
> > > + * arm_smmu_flush_evtq - wait until all events currently in the queue have been
> > > + * consumed.
> > > + *
> > > + * Wait until the evtq thread finished a batch, or until the queue is empty.
> > > + * Note that we don't handle overflows on q->batch. If it occurs, just wait for
> > > + * the queue to be empty.
> > > + */
> > > +static int arm_smmu_flush_evtq(void *cookie, struct device *dev, int pasid)
> > > +{
> > > + int ret;
> > > + u64 batch;
> > > + struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = cookie;
> > > + struct arm_smmu_queue *q = &smmu->evtq.q;
> > > +
> > > + spin_lock(&q->wq.lock);
> > > + if (queue_sync_prod_in(q) == -EOVERFLOW)
> > > + dev_err(smmu->dev, "evtq overflow detected -- requests lost\n");
> > > +
> > > + batch = q->batch;
> >
> > So this is trying to be sure we have advanced the queue 2 spots?
>
> So we call arm_smmu_flush_evtq() before decommissioning a PASID, to make
> sure that there aren't any pending event for this PASID languishing in the
> fault queues.
>
> The main test is queue_empty(). If that succeeds then we know that there
> aren't any pending event (and the PASID is safe to reuse). But if new
> events are constantly added to the queue then we wait for the evtq thread
> to handle a full batch, where one batch corresponds to the queue size. For
> that we take the batch number when entering flush(), and wait for the evtq
> thread to increment it twice.
>
> > Is there a potential race here? q->batch could have updated before we take
> > a local copy.
>
> Yes we're just checking on the progress of the evtq thread. All accesses
> to batch are made while holding the wq lock.
>
> Flush is a rare event so the lock isn't contended, but the wake_up() that
> this patch introduces in arm_smmu_evtq_thread() does add some overhead
> (0.85% of arm_smmu_evtq_thread(), according to perf). It would be nice to
> get rid of it but I haven't found anything clever yet.
>
Thanks. Maybe worth a few comments in the code as this is a bit esoteric.
Thanks,
Jonathan
> Thanks,
> Jean
>
> >
> > > + ret = wait_event_interruptible_locked(q->wq, queue_empty(&q->llq) ||
> > > + q->batch >= batch + 2);
> > > + spin_unlock(&q->wq.lock);
> > > +
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > ...
> >
