On 2021-08-11 21:23, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 2021-08-11 11:30, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 11:37:25AM +0530, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
index f7da8953afbe..3904b598e0f9 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c
@@ -327,9 +327,16 @@ static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_s2(unsigned
long iova, size_t size,
static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_walk_s1(unsigned long iova, size_t
size,
size_t granule, void *cookie)
{
- arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_s1(iova, size, granule, cookie,
- ARM_SMMU_CB_S1_TLBIVA);
- arm_smmu_tlb_sync_context(cookie);
+ struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = cookie;
+ struct arm_smmu_cfg *cfg = &smmu_domain->cfg;
+
+ if (cfg->flush_walk_prefer_tlbiasid) {
+ arm_smmu_tlb_inv_context_s1(cookie);
Hmm, this introduces an unconditional wmb() if tlbiasid is preferred.
I
think that should be predicated on ARM_SMMU_FEAT_COHERENT_WALK like it
is
for the by-VA ops. Worth doing as a separate patch.
+ } else {
+ arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_s1(iova, size, granule, cookie,
+ ARM_SMMU_CB_S1_TLBIVA);
+ arm_smmu_tlb_sync_context(cookie);
+ }
}
static void arm_smmu_tlb_add_page_s1(struct iommu_iotlb_gather
*gather,
@@ -765,8 +772,10 @@ static int arm_smmu_init_domain_context(struct
iommu_domain *domain,
.iommu_dev = smmu->dev,
};
- if (!iommu_get_dma_strict(domain))
+ if (!iommu_get_dma_strict(domain)) {
pgtbl_cfg.quirks |= IO_PGTABLE_QUIRK_NON_STRICT;
+ cfg->flush_walk_prefer_tlbiasid = true;
This is going to interact badly with Robin's series to allow dynamic
transition to non-strict mode, as we don't have a mechanism to switch
over to the by-ASID behaviour. Yes, it should _work_, but it's ugly
having
different TLBI behaviour just because of the how the domain became
non-strict.
Robin -- I think this originated from your idea at [1]. Any idea how
to make
it work with your other series, or shall we drop this part for now and
leave
the TLB invalidation behaviour the same for now?
Yeah, I'd say drop it - I'm currently half an hour into a first
attempt at removing io_pgtable_tlb_flush_walk() entirely, which would
make it moot for non-strict anyway.
I have dropped it and sent a v5.
Thanks,
Sai
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
