On Thu, 23 May 2024 11:58:48 -0300 Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 11:40:58PM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2024 7:32 AM > > > > > > On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 11:26:21PM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > > > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 8:30 PM > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 06:24:14AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > > > > I'm fine to do a special check in the attach path to enable the flush > > > > > > only for Intel GPU. > > > > > > > > > > We already effectively do this already by checking the domain > > > > > capabilities. Only the Intel GPU will have a non-coherent domain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm confused. In earlier discussions you wanted to find a way to not > > > > publish others due to the check of non-coherent domain, e.g. some > > > > ARM SMMU cannot force snoop. > > > > > > > > Then you and Alex discussed the possibility of reducing pessimistic > > > > flushes by virtualizing the PCI NOSNOOP bit. > > > > > > > > With that in mind I was thinking whether we explicitly enable this > > > > flush only for Intel GPU instead of checking non-coherent domain > > > > in the attach path, since it's the only device with such requirement. > > > > > > I am suggesting to do both checks: > > > - If the iommu domain indicates it has force coherency then leave PCI > > > no-snoop alone and no flush > > > - If the PCI NOSNOOP bit is or can be 0 then no flush > > > - Otherwise flush > > > > How to judge whether PCI NOSNOOP can be 0? If following PCI spec > > it can always be set to 0 but then we break the requirement for Intel > > GPU. If we explicitly exempt Intel GPU in 2nd check then what'd be > > the value of doing that generic check? > > Non-PCI environments still have this problem, and the first check does > help them since we don't have PCI config space there. > > PCI can supply more information (no snoop impossible) and variant > drivers can add in too (want no snoop) I'm not sure I follow either. Since i915 doesn't set or test no-snoop enable, I think we need to assume drivers expect the reset value, so a device that supports no-snoop expects to use it, ie. we can't trap on no-snoop enable being set, the device is more likely to just operate with reduced performance if we surreptitiously clear the bit. The current proposal is to enable flushing based only on the domain enforcement of coherency. I think the augmentation is therefore that if the device is PCI and the no-snoop enable bit is zero after reset (indicating hardwired to zero), we also don't need to flush. I'm not sure the polarity of the variant drive statement above is correct. If the no-snoop enable bit is set after reset, we'd assume no-snoop is possible, so the variant driver would only need a way to indicate the device doesn't actually use no-snoop. For that it might just virtualize the no-snoop enable setting to vfio-pci-core. Thanks, Alex
