On 2023-12-14 12:13 pm, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 11:53:52AM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote:On 12/12/2023 11:47, Ryan Roberts wrote:On 12/12/2023 11:35, Will Deacon wrote:On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 10:54:37AM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote:diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h index bb2c2833a987..925ef3bdf9ed 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h @@ -399,7 +399,7 @@ do { \ #define __flush_s2_tlb_range_op(op, start, pages, stride, tlb_level) \ __flush_tlb_range_op(op, start, pages, stride, 0, tlb_level, false)-static inline void __flush_tlb_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,+static inline void __flush_tlb_range_nosync(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start, unsigned long end, unsigned long stride, bool last_level, int tlb_level) @@ -431,10 +431,19 @@ static inline void __flush_tlb_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, else __flush_tlb_range_op(vae1is, start, pages, stride, asid, tlb_level, true);- dsb(ish);mmu_notifier_arch_invalidate_secondary_tlbs(vma->vm_mm, start, end); }+static inline void __flush_tlb_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,+ unsigned long start, unsigned long end, + unsigned long stride, bool last_level, + int tlb_level) +{ + __flush_tlb_range_nosync(vma, start, end, stride, + last_level, tlb_level); + dsb(ish); +}Hmm, are you sure it's safe to defer the DSB until after the secondary TLB invalidation? It will have a subtle effect on e.g. an SMMU participating in broadcast TLB maintenance, because now the ATC will be invalidated before completion of the TLB invalidation and it's not obviously safe to me.I'll be honest; I don't know that it's safe. The notifier calls turned up during a rebase and I stared at it for a while, before eventually concluding that I should just follow the existing pattern in __flush_tlb_page_nosync(): That one calls the mmu notifier without the dsb, then flush_tlb_page() does the dsb after. So I assumed it was safe. If you think it's not safe, I guess there is a bug to fix in __flush_tlb_page_nosync()?Did you have an opinion on this? I'm just putting together a v4 of this series, and I'll remove this optimization if you think it's unsound. But in that case, I guess we have an existing bug to fix too?Sorry, Ryan, I've not had a chance to look into it in more detail. But as you rightly point out, you're not introducing the issue (assuming it is one), so I don't think it needs to hold you up. Your code just makes the thing more "obvious" to me. Robin, Jean-Philippe -- do we need to make sure that the SMMU has completed its TLB invalidation before issuing an ATC invalidate? My half-baked worry is whether or not an ATS request could refill the ATC before the TLBI has completed, therefore rendering the ATC invalidation useless.
I would agree, and the spec for CMD_ATC_INV does call out a TLBI->sync->ATCI->sync sequence. At the moment the SVA notifier is issuing its own command-based TLBIs anyway so the necessary sync is implicit there, but if and when we get BTM support wired up properly it would be nice not to have to bodge in an additional sync/DSB.
Cheers, Robin.
