Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] iommu/mediatek: Move the tlb_sync into tlb_flush | From | Yong Wu <> | Date | Tue, 8 Oct 2019 16:18:32 +0800 |
| |
On Mon, 2019-09-30 at 13:09 +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 01:42:22PM +0800, Yong Wu wrote: > > The commit 4d689b619445 ("iommu/io-pgtable-arm-v7s: Convert to IOMMU API > > TLB sync") help move the tlb_sync of unmap from v7s into the iommu > > framework. It helps add a new function "mtk_iommu_iotlb_sync", But it > > lacked the dom->pgtlock, then it will cause the variable > > "tlb_flush_active" may be changed unexpectedly, we could see this warning > > log randomly: > > > > mtk-iommu 10205000.iommu: Partial TLB flush timed out, falling back to > > full flush > > > > To fix this issue, we can add dom->pgtlock in the "mtk_iommu_iotlb_sync". > > And when checking this issue, we find that __arm_v7s_unmap call > > io_pgtable_tlb_add_flush consecutively when it is supersection/largepage, > > this also is potential unsafe for us. There is no tlb flush queue in the > > MediaTek M4U HW. The HW always expect the tlb_flush/tlb_sync one by one. > > If v7s don't always gurarantee the sequence, Thus, In this patch I move > > the tlb_sync into tlb_flush(also rename the function deleting "_nosync"). > > and we don't care if it is leaf, rearrange the callback functions. Also, > > the tlb flush/sync was already finished in v7s, then iotlb_sync and > > iotlb_sync_all is unnecessary. > > > > Besides, there are two minor changes: > > a) Use writel for the register F_MMU_INV_RANGE which is for triggering the > > HW work. We expect all the setting(iova_start/iova_end...) have already > > been finished before F_MMU_INV_RANGE. > > b) Reduce the tlb timeout value from 100000us to 1000us. the original value > > is so long that affect the multimedia performance. > > > > Fixes: 4d689b619445 ("iommu/io-pgtable-arm-v7s: Convert to IOMMU API TLB sync") > > Signed-off-by: Chao Hao <chao.hao@mediatek.com> > > Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@mediatek.com> > > --- > > This patch looks break the logic for tlb_flush and tlb_sync. I'm not > > sure if it > > is reasonable. If someone has concern, I could change: > > a) Add dom->pgtlock in the mtk_iommu_iotlb_sync > > b) Add a io_pgtable_tlb_sync in [1]. > > The patch looks ok to me, but please could you split it up so that the > timeout and writel are done separately?
Thanks for the quick review, I will separate them.
> > Thanks, > > Will
| |