From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> Cc: baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>, Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.com>, Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>, Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>, Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] iommu: Add blocking_domain_ops field in iommu_ops Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 10:37:55 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <c8492b29-bc27-ae12-d5c4-9fbbc797e310@linux.intel.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20220516135741.GV1343366@nvidia.com> Hi Jason, On 2022/5/16 21:57, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 12:22:08PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: >> On 2022-05-16 02:57, Lu Baolu wrote: >>> Each IOMMU driver must provide a blocking domain ops. If the hardware >>> supports detaching domain from device, setting blocking domain equals >>> detaching the existing domain from the deivce. Otherwise, an UNMANAGED >>> domain without any mapping will be used instead. >> Unfortunately that's backwards - most of the implementations of .detach_dev >> are disabling translation entirely, meaning the device ends up effectively >> in passthrough rather than blocked. > Ideally we'd convert the detach_dev of every driver into either > a blocking or identity domain. The trick is knowing which is which.. I am still a bit puzzled about how the blocking_domain should be used when it is extended to support ->set_dev_pasid. If it's a blocking domain, the IOMMU driver knows that setting the blocking domain to device pasid means detaching the existing one. But if it's an identity domain, how could the IOMMU driver choose between: - setting the input domain to the pasid on device; or, - detaching the existing domain. I've ever thought about below solutions: - Checking the domain types and dispatching them to different operations. - Using different blocking domains for different types of domains. But both look rough. > > Guessing going down the list: > apple dart - blocking, detach_dev calls apple_dart_hw_disable_dma() same as > IOMMU_DOMAIN_BLOCKED > [I wonder if this drive ris wrong in other ways though because > I dont see a remove_streams in attach_dev] > exynos - this seems to disable the 'sysmmu' so I'm guessing this is > identity > iommu-vmsa - Comment says 'disable mmu translaction' so I'm guessing > this is idenity > mkt_v1 - Code looks similar to mkt, which is probably identity. > rkt - No idea > sprd - No idea > sun50i - This driver confusingly treats identity the same as > unmanaged, seems wrong, no idea. > amd - Not sure, clear_dte_entry() seems to set translation on but points > the PTE to 0 ? Based on the spec table 8 I would have expected > TV to be clear which would be blocking. Maybe a bug?? > arm smmu qcomm - not sure > intel - blocking > > These doesn't support default domains, so detach_dev should return > back to DMA API ownership, which is either identity or something weird: > fsl_pamu - identity due to the PPC use of dma direct > msm > mkt > omap > s390 - platform DMA ops > terga-gart - Usually something called a GART would be 0 length once > disabled, guessing blocking? > tegra-smmu > > So, the approach here should be to go driver by driver and convert > detach_dev to either identity, blocking or just delete it entirely, > excluding the above 7 that don't support default domains. And get acks > from the driver owners. > Agreed. There seems to be a long way to go. I am wondering if we could decouple this refactoring from my new SVA API work? We can easily switch .detach_dev_pasid to using blocking domain later. Best regards, baolu
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>, Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>, Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] iommu: Add blocking_domain_ops field in iommu_ops Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 10:37:55 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <c8492b29-bc27-ae12-d5c4-9fbbc797e310@linux.intel.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20220516135741.GV1343366@nvidia.com> Hi Jason, On 2022/5/16 21:57, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 12:22:08PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: >> On 2022-05-16 02:57, Lu Baolu wrote: >>> Each IOMMU driver must provide a blocking domain ops. If the hardware >>> supports detaching domain from device, setting blocking domain equals >>> detaching the existing domain from the deivce. Otherwise, an UNMANAGED >>> domain without any mapping will be used instead. >> Unfortunately that's backwards - most of the implementations of .detach_dev >> are disabling translation entirely, meaning the device ends up effectively >> in passthrough rather than blocked. > Ideally we'd convert the detach_dev of every driver into either > a blocking or identity domain. The trick is knowing which is which.. I am still a bit puzzled about how the blocking_domain should be used when it is extended to support ->set_dev_pasid. If it's a blocking domain, the IOMMU driver knows that setting the blocking domain to device pasid means detaching the existing one. But if it's an identity domain, how could the IOMMU driver choose between: - setting the input domain to the pasid on device; or, - detaching the existing domain. I've ever thought about below solutions: - Checking the domain types and dispatching them to different operations. - Using different blocking domains for different types of domains. But both look rough. > > Guessing going down the list: > apple dart - blocking, detach_dev calls apple_dart_hw_disable_dma() same as > IOMMU_DOMAIN_BLOCKED > [I wonder if this drive ris wrong in other ways though because > I dont see a remove_streams in attach_dev] > exynos - this seems to disable the 'sysmmu' so I'm guessing this is > identity > iommu-vmsa - Comment says 'disable mmu translaction' so I'm guessing > this is idenity > mkt_v1 - Code looks similar to mkt, which is probably identity. > rkt - No idea > sprd - No idea > sun50i - This driver confusingly treats identity the same as > unmanaged, seems wrong, no idea. > amd - Not sure, clear_dte_entry() seems to set translation on but points > the PTE to 0 ? Based on the spec table 8 I would have expected > TV to be clear which would be blocking. Maybe a bug?? > arm smmu qcomm - not sure > intel - blocking > > These doesn't support default domains, so detach_dev should return > back to DMA API ownership, which is either identity or something weird: > fsl_pamu - identity due to the PPC use of dma direct > msm > mkt > omap > s390 - platform DMA ops > terga-gart - Usually something called a GART would be 0 length once > disabled, guessing blocking? > tegra-smmu > > So, the approach here should be to go driver by driver and convert > detach_dev to either identity, blocking or just delete it entirely, > excluding the above 7 that don't support default domains. And get acks > from the driver owners. > Agreed. There seems to be a long way to go. I am wondering if we could decouple this refactoring from my new SVA API work? We can easily switch .detach_dev_pasid to using blocking domain later. Best regards, baolu _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-17 2:38 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2022-05-16 1:57 [PATCH 0/5] iommu: Make blocking domain static for group Lu Baolu 2022-05-16 1:57 ` Lu Baolu 2022-05-16 1:57 ` [PATCH 1/5] iommu: Rename attach_dev to set_dev in domain ops Lu Baolu 2022-05-16 1:57 ` Lu Baolu 2022-05-16 1:57 ` [PATCH 2/5] iommu: Add blocking_domain_ops field in iommu_ops Lu Baolu 2022-05-16 1:57 ` Lu Baolu 2022-05-16 7:27 ` Christoph Hellwig 2022-05-16 7:27 ` Christoph Hellwig 2022-05-16 13:05 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2022-05-16 13:05 ` Jason Gunthorpe via iommu 2022-05-16 11:22 ` Robin Murphy 2022-05-16 11:22 ` Robin Murphy 2022-05-16 13:43 ` Baolu Lu 2022-05-16 13:43 ` Baolu Lu 2022-05-16 13:57 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2022-05-16 13:57 ` Jason Gunthorpe via iommu 2022-05-17 2:37 ` Baolu Lu [this message] 2022-05-17 2:37 ` Baolu Lu 2022-05-17 12:43 ` Robin Murphy 2022-05-17 12:43 ` Robin Murphy 2022-05-17 13:13 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2022-05-17 13:13 ` Jason Gunthorpe via iommu 2022-05-18 6:43 ` Baolu Lu 2022-05-18 6:43 ` Baolu Lu 2022-05-17 13:08 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2022-05-17 13:08 ` Jason Gunthorpe via iommu 2022-05-20 8:45 ` Joerg Roedel 2022-05-20 8:45 ` Joerg Roedel 2022-05-20 11:03 ` Baolu Lu 2022-05-20 11:03 ` Baolu Lu 2022-05-16 1:57 ` [PATCH 3/5] iommu: Make blocking domain static for iommu group Lu Baolu 2022-05-16 1:57 ` Lu Baolu 2022-05-16 1:57 ` [PATCH 4/5] iommu: Use blocking domain for empty domain attaching Lu Baolu 2022-05-16 1:57 ` Lu Baolu 2022-05-16 1:57 ` [PATCH 5/5] iommu: Remove .detach_dev from iommu domain ops Lu Baolu 2022-05-16 1:57 ` Lu Baolu
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=c8492b29-bc27-ae12-d5c4-9fbbc797e310@linux.intel.com \ --to=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \ --cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \ --cc=eric.auger@redhat.com \ --cc=hch@infradead.org \ --cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \ --cc=jacob.jun.pan@intel.com \ --cc=jean-philippe@linaro.com \ --cc=jgg@nvidia.com \ --cc=joro@8bytes.org \ --cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \ --cc=will@kernel.org \ --cc=yi.l.liu@intel.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.