Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:48:56 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v12 5/5] iommu/vt-d: improve ITE fault handling if target device isn't present | From | Baolu Lu <> |
| |
On 2024/1/29 17:06, Tian, Kevin wrote: >> From: Ethan Zhao<haifeng.zhao@linux.intel.com> >> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 11:49 AM >> >> Because surprise removal could happen anytime, e.g. user could request safe >> removal to EP(endpoint device) via sysfs and brings its link down to do >> surprise removal cocurrently. such aggressive cases would cause ATS >> invalidation request issued to non-existence target device, then deadly >> loop to retry that request after ITE fault triggered in interrupt context. >> this patch aims to optimize the ITE handling by checking the target device >> presence state to avoid retrying the timeout request blindly, thus avoid >> hard lockup or system hang. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ethan Zhao<haifeng.zhao@linux.intel.com> >> --- >> drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c >> index 814134e9aa5a..2e214b43725c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c >> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c >> @@ -1272,6 +1272,7 @@ static int qi_check_fault(struct intel_iommu >> *iommu, int index, int wait_index, >> { >> u32 fault; >> int head, tail; >> + u64 iqe_err, ite_sid; >> struct q_inval *qi = iommu->qi; >> int shift = qi_shift(iommu); >> >> @@ -1316,6 +1317,13 @@ static int qi_check_fault(struct intel_iommu >> *iommu, int index, int wait_index, >> tail = readl(iommu->reg + DMAR_IQT_REG); >> tail = ((tail >> shift) - 1 + QI_LENGTH) % QI_LENGTH; >> >> + /* >> + * SID field is valid only when the ITE field is Set in FSTS_REG >> + * see Intel VT-d spec r4.1, section 11.4.9.9 >> + */ >> + iqe_err = dmar_readq(iommu->reg + DMAR_IQER_REG); >> + ite_sid = DMAR_IQER_REG_ITESID(iqe_err); >> + >> writel(DMA_FSTS_ITE, iommu->reg + DMAR_FSTS_REG); >> pr_info("Invalidation Time-out Error (ITE) cleared\n"); >> >> @@ -1325,6 +1333,16 @@ static int qi_check_fault(struct intel_iommu >> *iommu, int index, int wait_index, >> head = (head - 2 + QI_LENGTH) % QI_LENGTH; >> } while (head != tail); >> >> + /* >> + * If got ITE, we need to check if the sid of ITE is the same as >> + * current ATS invalidation target device, if yes, don't try this >> + * request anymore if the target device isn't present. >> + * 0 value of ite_sid means old VT-d device, no ite_sid value. >> + */ >> + if (pdev && ite_sid && !pci_device_is_present(pdev) && >> + ite_sid == pci_dev_id(pci_physfn(pdev))) >> + return -ETIMEDOUT; >> + > since the hardware already reports source id leading to timeout, can't we > just find the pci_dev according to reported ite_sid? this is a slow path (either > due to device in bad state or removed) hence it's not necessary to add more > intelligence to pass the pci_dev in, leading to only a partial fix can be backported. > > It's also more future-proof, say if one day the driver allows batching invalidation > requests for multiple devices then no need to pass in a list of devices.
I have ever thought about this solution and gave up in the end due to the locking issue.
A batch of qi requests must be handled in the spin lock critical region to enforce that only one batch of requests is submitted at a time. Searching pci_dev in this locking region might result in nested locking issues, and I haven't found a good solution for this yet.
Unless someone can bring up a better solution, perhaps we have to live in a world where only single device TLB invalidation request in a batch could be submitted to the queue.
Best regards, baolu
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |