On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 06:55:20PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> On 2021-12-20 19:27, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > Hi Robin,
> >
> > Thank you for the reply!
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 06:42:26PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > On 2021-11-19 07:19, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > From: Nate Watterson <nwatterson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > NVIDIA's Grace Soc has a CMDQ-Virtualization (CMDQV) hardware,
> > > > which extends the standard ARM SMMU v3 IP to support multiple
> > > > VCMDQs with virtualization capabilities. In-kernel of host OS,
> > > > they're used to reduce contention on a single queue. In terms
> > > > of command queue, they are very like the standard CMDQ/ECMDQs,
> > > > but only support CS_NONE in the CS field of CMD_SYNC command.
> > > >
> > > > This patch adds a new nvidia-grace-cmdqv file and inserts its
> > > > structure pointer into the existing arm_smmu_device, and then
> > > > adds related function calls in the arm-smmu-v3 driver.
> > > >
> > > > In the CMDQV driver itself, this patch only adds minimal part
> > > > for host kernel support. Upon probe(), VINTF0 is reserved for
> > > > in-kernel use. And some of the VCMDQs are assigned to VINTF0.
> > > > Then the driver will select one of VCMDQs in the VINTF0 based
> > > > on the CPU currently executing, to issue commands.
> > >
> > > Is there a tangible difference to DMA API or VFIO performance?
> >
> > Our testing environment is currently running on a single-core
> > CPU, so unfortunately we don't have a perf data at this point.
>
> OK, as for the ECMDQ patches I think we'll need some investigation with
> real workloads to judge whether we can benefit from these things enough
> to justify the complexity, and whether the design is right.
>
> My gut feeling is that if these multi-queue schemes really can live up
> to their promise of making contention negligible, then they should
> further stand to benefit from bypassing the complex lock-free command
> batching in favour of something more lightweight, which could change the
> direction of much of the refactoring.
Makes sense. We will share our perf data once we have certain
level of support on our test environment.
> > > [...]
> > > > +struct arm_smmu_cmdq *nvidia_grace_cmdqv_get_cmdq(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct nvidia_grace_cmdqv *cmdqv = smmu->nvidia_grace_cmdqv;
> > > > + struct nvidia_grace_cmdqv_vintf *vintf0 = &cmdqv->vintf0;
> > > > + u16 qidx;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Check error status of vintf0 */
> > > > + if (!FIELD_GET(VINTF_STATUS, vintf0->status))
> > > > + return &smmu->cmdq;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Select a vcmdq to use. Here we use a temporal solution to
> > > > + * balance out traffic on cmdq issuing: each cmdq has its own
> > > > + * lock, if all cpus issue cmdlist using the same cmdq, only
> > > > + * one CPU at a time can enter the process, while the others
> > > > + * will be spinning at the same lock.
> > > > + */
> > > > + qidx = smp_processor_id() % cmdqv->num_vcmdqs_per_vintf;
> > >
> > > How does ordering work between queues? Do they follow a global order
> > > such that a sync on any queue is guaranteed to complete all prior
> > > commands on all queues?
> >
> > CMDQV internal scheduler would insert a SYNC when (for example)
> > switching from VCMDQ0 to VCMDQ1 while last command in VCMDQ0 is
> > not SYNC. HW has a configuration bit in the register to disable
> > this feature, which is by default enabled.
>
> Interesting, thanks. So it sounds like this is something you can get
> away with for the moment, but may need to revisit once people chasing
> real-world performance start wanting to turn that bit off.
Yea, we have limitations on both testing setup and available
clients for an in-depth perf measurement at this moment. But
we surely will do as you mentioned. Anyway, this is just for
initial support.
> > > The challenge to make ECMDQ useful to Linux is how to make sure that all
> > > the commands expected to be within scope of a future CMND_SYNC plus that
> > > sync itself all get issued on the same queue, so I'd be mildly surprised
> > > if you didn't have the same problem.
> >
> > PATCH-3 in this series actually helps align the command queues,
> > between issued commands and SYNC, if bool sync == true. Yet, if
> > doing something like issue->issue->issue_with_sync, it could be
> > tricker.
>
> Indeed between the iommu_iotlb_gather mechanism and low-level command
> batching things are already a lot more concentrated than they could be,
> but arm_smmu_cmdq_batch_add() and its callers stand out as examples of
> where we'd still be vulnerable to preemption. What I haven't even tried
> to reason about yet is assumptions in the higher-level APIs, e.g. if
> io-pgtable might chuck out a TLBI during an iommu_unmap() which we
> implicitly expect a later iommu_iotlb_sync() to cover.
Though I might have oversimplified the situation here, I see
the arm_smmu_cmdq_batch_add() calls are typically followed by
arm_smmu_cmdq_batch_submit(). Could we just add a SYNC in the
_batch_submit() to all the queues that it previously touched
in the _batch_add()?
> I've been thinking that in many ways per-domain queues make quite a bit
> of sense and would be easier to manage than per-CPU ones - plus that's
> pretty much the usage model once we get to VMs anyway - but that fails
> to help the significant cases like networking and storage where many
> CPUs are servicing a big monolithic device in a single domain :(
Yea, and it's hard to assume which client would use CMDQ more
frequently, in order to balance or assign more queues to that
client, which feels like a QoS conundrum.
Thanks
Nic
