On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:34:42PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 02:25:45PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 01:42:13PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:55:10AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Sricharan R <sricharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > Hi,
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > On 7/13/2017 5:20 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Sricharan R <sricharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> Hi Vivek,
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> On 7/13/2017 10:43 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>> Hi Stephen,
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> On 07/13/2017 04:24 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>>> On 07/06, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> @@ -1231,12 +1237,18 @@ static int arm_smmu_map(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned long iova,
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> static size_t arm_smmu_unmap(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned long iova,
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> size_t size)
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> {
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> - struct io_pgtable_ops *ops = to_smmu_domain(domain)->pgtbl_ops;
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> + struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = to_smmu_domain(domain);
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> + struct io_pgtable_ops *ops = smmu_domain->pgtbl_ops;
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> + size_t ret;
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> if (!ops)
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> return 0;
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> - return ops->unmap(ops, iova, size);
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> + pm_runtime_get_sync(smmu_domain->smmu->dev);
>> >> >> >> >>>>> Can these map/unmap ops be called from an atomic context? I seem
>> >> >> >> >>>>> to recall that being a problem before.
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> That's something which was dropped in the following patch merged in master:
>> >> >> >> >>>> 523d7423e21b iommu/arm-smmu: Remove io-pgtable spinlock
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> Looks like we don't need locks here anymore?
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> Apart from the locking, wonder why a explicit pm_runtime is needed
>> >> >> >> >>> from unmap. Somehow looks like some path in the master using that
>> >> >> >> >>> should have enabled the pm ?
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Yes, there are a bunch of scenarios where unmap can happen with
>> >> >> >> >> disabled master (but not in atomic context). On the gpu side we
>> >> >> >> >> opportunistically keep a buffer mapping until the buffer is freed
>> >> >> >> >> (which can happen after gpu is disabled). Likewise, v4l2 won't unmap
>> >> >> >> >> an exported dmabuf while some other driver holds a reference to it
>> >> >> >> >> (which can be dropped when the v4l2 device is suspended).
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Since unmap triggers tbl flush which touches iommu regs, the iommu
>> >> >> >> >> driver *definitely* needs a pm_runtime_get_sync().
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Ok, with that being the case, there are two things here,
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > 1) If the device links are still intact at these places where unmap is called,
>> >> >> >> > then pm_runtime from the master would setup the all the clocks. That would
>> >> >> >> > avoid reintroducing the locking indirectly here.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > 2) If not, then doing it here is the only way. But for both cases, since
>> >> >> >> > the unmap can be called from atomic context, resume handler here should
>> >> >> >> > avoid doing clk_prepare_enable , instead move the clk_prepare to the init.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I do kinda like the approach Marek suggested.. of deferring the tlb
>> >> >> >> flush until resume. I'm wondering if we could combine that with
>> >> >> >> putting the mmu in a stalled state when we suspend (and not resume the
>> >> >> >> mmu until after the pending tlb flush)?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'm not sure that a stalled state is what we're after here, because we need
>> >> >> > to take care to prevent any table walks if we've freed the underlying pages.
>> >> >> > What we could try to do is disable the SMMU (put into global bypass) and
>> >> >> > invalidate the TLB when performing a suspend operation, then we just ignore
>> >> >> > invalidation whilst the clocks are stopped and, on resume, enable the SMMU
>> >> >> > again.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> wouldn't stalled just block any memory transactions by device(s) using
>> >> >> the context bank? Putting it in bypass isn't really a good thing if
>> >> >> there is any chance the device can sneak in a memory access before
>> >> >> we've taking it back out of bypass (ie. makes gpu a giant userspace
>> >> >> controlled root hole).
>> >> >
>> >> > If it doesn't deadlock, then yes, it will stall transactions. However, that
>> >> > doesn't mean it necessarily prevents page table walks.
>> >>
>> >> btw, I guess the concern about pagetable walk is that the unmap could
>> >> have removed some sub-level of the pt that the tlb walk would hit?
>> >> Would deferring freeing those pages help?
>> >
>> > Could do, but it sounds like a lot of complication that I think we can fix
>> > by making the suspend operation put the SMMU into a "clean" state.
>> >
>> >> > Instead of bypass, we
>> >> > could configure all the streams to terminate, but this race still worries me
>> >> > somewhat. I thought that the SMMU would only be suspended if all of its
>> >> > masters were suspended, so if the GPU wants to come out of suspend then the
>> >> > SMMU should be resumed first.
>> >>
>> >> I believe this should be true.. on the gpu side, I'm mostly trying to
>> >> avoid having to power the gpu back on to free buffers. (On the v4l2
>> >> side, somewhere in the core videobuf code would also need to be made
>> >> to wrap it's dma_unmap_sg() with pm_runtime_get/put()..)
>> >
>> > Right, and we shouldn't have to resume it if we suspend it in a clean state,
>> > with the TLBs invalidated.
>> >
>>
>> I guess if the device_link() stuff ensured the attached device
>> (gpu/etc) was suspended before suspending the iommu, then I guess I
>> can't see how temporarily putting the iommu in bypass would be a
>> problem. I haven't looked at the device_link() stuff too closely, but
>> iommu being resumed first and suspended last seems like the only thing
>> that would make sense. I'm mostly just nervous about iommu in bypass
>> vs gpu since userspace has so much control over what address gpu
>> writes to / reads from, so getting it wrong w/ the iommu would be a
>> rather bad thing ;-)
>
> Right, but we can also configure it to terminate if you don't want bypass.
>
ok, terminate wfm
BR,
-R
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
