On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 05:27:28PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 05/09/2024 4:53 pm, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 05:49:56AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote: > > > From: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This reverts commit 85b715a334583488ad7fbd3001fe6fd617b7d4c0. > > > > > > It was causing gpu smmu faults on x1e80100. > > > > > > I _think_ what is causing this is the change in ordering of > > > __arm_lpae_clear_pte() (dma_sync_single_for_device() on the pgtable > > > memory) and io_pgtable_tlb_flush_walk(). I'm not entirely sure how > > > this patch is supposed to work correctly in the face of other > > > concurrent translations (to buffers unrelated to the one being > > > unmapped(), because after the io_pgtable_tlb_flush_walk() we can have > > > stale data read back into the tlb. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c | 31 ++++++++++++++----------------- > > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > > > Please can you try the diff below, instead? > > Given that the GPU driver's .tlb_add_page is a no-op, I can't see this > making a difference. In fact, given that msm_iommu_pagetable_unmap() still > does a brute-force iommu_flush_iotlb_all() after io-pgtable returns, and in > fact only recently made .tlb_flush_walk start doing anything either for the > sake of the map path, I'm now really wondering how this patch has had any > effect at all... :/ Hmm, yup. Looks like Rob has come back to say the problem lies elsewhere anyway. One thing below though... > > > > Will > > > > --->8 > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c b/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c > > index 0e67f1721a3d..0a32e9499e2c 100644 > > --- a/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c > > @@ -672,7 +672,7 @@ static size_t __arm_lpae_unmap(struct arm_lpae_io_pgtable *data, > > /* Clear the remaining entries */ > > __arm_lpae_clear_pte(ptep, &iop->cfg, i); > > - if (gather && !iommu_iotlb_gather_queued(gather)) > > + if (!iommu_iotlb_gather_queued(gather)) > > Note that this would reintroduce the latent issue which was present > originally, wherein iommu_iotlb_gather_queued(NULL) is false, but if we > actually allow a NULL gather to be passed to io_pgtable_tlb_add_page() it > may end up being dereferenced (e.g. in arm-smmu-v3). I think there is still something to fix here. arm_lpae_init_pte() can pass a NULL gather to __arm_lpae_unmap() and I don't think skipping the invalidation is correct in that case. Either the drivers need to handle that or we shouldn't be passing NULL. What do you think? Will
