lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/7] iommu/vt-d: Fix PASID devTLB invalidation
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 03:01:29 +0000
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com> wrote:

> > From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 3:26 PM
> >
> > On 2020/6/23 23:43, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > > DevTLB flush can be used for both DMA request with and without
> > > PASIDs. The former uses PASID#0 (RID2PASID), latter uses non-zero
> > > PASID for SVA usage.
> > >
> > > This patch adds a check for PASID value such that devTLB flush
> > > with PASID is used for SVA case. This is more efficient in that
> > > multiple PASIDs can be used by a single device, when tearing down
> > > a PASID entry we shall flush only the devTLB specific to a PASID.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 6f7db75e1c46 ("iommu/vt-d: Add second level page table")
>
> btw is it really a fix? From the description it's more like an
> optimization...
>
I guess it depends on how the issue is perceived. There is no
functional problem but the flush is too coarse w/o this patch.

> > > Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.c
> > > b/drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.c index c81f0f17c6ba..3991a24539a1
> > > 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.c
> > > @@ -486,7 +486,16 @@ devtlb_invalidation_with_pasid(struct
> > intel_iommu *iommu,
> > > qdep = info->ats_qdep;
> > > pfsid = info->pfsid;
> > >
> > > - qi_flush_dev_iotlb(iommu, sid, pfsid, qdep, 0, 64 -
> > > VTD_PAGE_SHIFT);
> > > + /*
> > > + * When PASID 0 is used, it indicates RID2PASID(DMA
> > > request w/o
> > PASID),
> > > + * devTLB flush w/o PASID should be used. For non-zero
> > > PASID under
> > > + * SVA usage, device could do DMA with multiple PASIDs.
> > > It is more
> > > + * efficient to flush devTLB specific to the PASID.
> > > + */
> > > + if (pasid)
> >
> > How about
> >
> > if (pasid == PASID_RID2PASID)
> > qi_flush_dev_iotlb(iommu, sid, pfsid, qdep, 0, 64 -
> > VTD_PAGE_SHIFT);
> > else
> > qi_flush_dev_iotlb_pasid(iommu, sid, pfsid, pasid,
> > qdep, 0, 64 -
> > VTD_PAGE_SHIFT);
> >
> > ?
> >
> > It makes the code more readable and still works even we reassign
> > another pasid for RID2PASID.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > baolu
> >
> > > + qi_flush_dev_iotlb_pasid(iommu, sid, pfsid,
> > > pasid, qdep, 0,
> > 64 - VTD_PAGE_SHIFT);
> > > + else
> > > + qi_flush_dev_iotlb(iommu, sid, pfsid, qdep, 0,
> > > 64 -
> > VTD_PAGE_SHIFT);
> > > }
> > >
> > > void intel_pasid_tear_down_entry(struct intel_iommu *iommu,
> > > struct
> > device *dev,
> > >

[Jacob Pan]

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-30 06:53    [W:0.056 / U:7.728 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site