All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
	Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
	joro@8bytes.org, will@kernel.org, dwmw2@infradead.org,
	corbet@lwn.net
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	linuxarm@huawei.com, thunder.leizhen@huawei.com,
	chenxiang66@hisilicon.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 4/6] iommu/vt-d: Add support for IOMMU default DMA mode build options
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 20:03:27 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cc22fd7e-2cb6-d33a-33ab-bbca0a389507@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f3fe6c4b-f360-ab7b-7ad2-ced63269499d@huawei.com>

On 2021-06-17 09:00, John Garry wrote:
> On 17/06/2021 08:32, Lu Baolu wrote:
>> On 6/16/21 7:03 PM, John Garry wrote:
>>> @@ -4382,9 +4380,9 @@ int __init intel_iommu_init(void)
>>>            * is likely to be much lower than the overhead of 
>>> synchronizing
>>>            * the virtual and physical IOMMU page-tables.
>>>            */
>>> -        if (!intel_iommu_strict && cap_caching_mode(iommu->cap)) {
>>> -            pr_warn("IOMMU batching is disabled due to 
>>> virtualization");
>>> -            intel_iommu_strict = 1;
>>> +        if (cap_caching_mode(iommu->cap)) {
>>> +            pr_warn("IOMMU batching disallowed due to 
>>> virtualization\n");
>>> +            iommu_set_dma_strict(true);
>>
>> With this change, VM guest will always show this warning.
> 
> Would they have got it before also normally?
> 
> I mean, default is intel_iommu_strict=0, so if 
> cap_caching_mode(iommu->cap) is true and intel_iommu_strict not set to 1 
> elsewhere previously, then we would get this print.
> 
>> How about
>> removing this message? Users could get the same information through the
>> kernel message added by "[PATCH v13 2/6] iommu: Print strict or lazy
>> mode at init time".
> 
> I think that the print from 2/6 should occur before this print.
> 
> Regardless I would think that you would still like to be notified of 
> this change in policy, right?
> 
> However I now realize that the print is in a loop per iommu, so we would 
> get it per iommu:
> 
> for_each_active_iommu(iommu, drhd) {
>      /*
>       * The flush queue implementation does not perform
>       * page-selective invalidations that are required for efficient
>       * TLB flushes in virtual environments.  The benefit of batching
>       * is likely to be much lower than the overhead of synchronizing
>       * the virtual and physical IOMMU page-tables.
>       */
>      if (!intel_iommu_strict && cap_caching_mode(iommu->cap)) {
>          pr_warn("IOMMU batching is disabled due to virtualization");
>          intel_iommu_strict = 1;
>      }
>      ...
> }
> 
> I need to change that. How about this:
> 
> bool print_warning = false;
> 
> for_each_active_iommu(iommu, drhd) {
>      /*
>       * The flush queue implementation does not perform
>       * page-selective invalidations that are required for efficient
>       * TLB flushes in virtual environments.  The benefit of batching
>       * is likely to be much lower than the overhead of synchronizing
>       * the virtual and physical IOMMU page-tables.
>       */
>      if (!print_warning && cap_caching_mode(iommu->cap)) {
>          pr_warn("IOMMU batching disallowed due to virtualization\n");
>          iommu_set_dma_strict(true);
>          print_warning = true;
>      }
>      ...
> }
> 
> or use pr_warn_once().

Maybe even downgrade it to pr_info_once(), since AIUI it's not really 
anything scary?

I suppose you could technically fake up a domain on the stack to get the 
global setting out of iommu_get_dma_strict(), or perhaps give 
iommu_set_dma_strict() a cheeky return value to indicate what the 
previous setting was, in order to suppress the message entirely if 
strict is already set, but I'm not at all convinced it's worth the bother.

Robin.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
	Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
	joro@8bytes.org, will@kernel.org, dwmw2@infradead.org,
	corbet@lwn.net
Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linuxarm@huawei.com, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 4/6] iommu/vt-d: Add support for IOMMU default DMA mode build options
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 20:03:27 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cc22fd7e-2cb6-d33a-33ab-bbca0a389507@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f3fe6c4b-f360-ab7b-7ad2-ced63269499d@huawei.com>

On 2021-06-17 09:00, John Garry wrote:
> On 17/06/2021 08:32, Lu Baolu wrote:
>> On 6/16/21 7:03 PM, John Garry wrote:
>>> @@ -4382,9 +4380,9 @@ int __init intel_iommu_init(void)
>>>            * is likely to be much lower than the overhead of 
>>> synchronizing
>>>            * the virtual and physical IOMMU page-tables.
>>>            */
>>> -        if (!intel_iommu_strict && cap_caching_mode(iommu->cap)) {
>>> -            pr_warn("IOMMU batching is disabled due to 
>>> virtualization");
>>> -            intel_iommu_strict = 1;
>>> +        if (cap_caching_mode(iommu->cap)) {
>>> +            pr_warn("IOMMU batching disallowed due to 
>>> virtualization\n");
>>> +            iommu_set_dma_strict(true);
>>
>> With this change, VM guest will always show this warning.
> 
> Would they have got it before also normally?
> 
> I mean, default is intel_iommu_strict=0, so if 
> cap_caching_mode(iommu->cap) is true and intel_iommu_strict not set to 1 
> elsewhere previously, then we would get this print.
> 
>> How about
>> removing this message? Users could get the same information through the
>> kernel message added by "[PATCH v13 2/6] iommu: Print strict or lazy
>> mode at init time".
> 
> I think that the print from 2/6 should occur before this print.
> 
> Regardless I would think that you would still like to be notified of 
> this change in policy, right?
> 
> However I now realize that the print is in a loop per iommu, so we would 
> get it per iommu:
> 
> for_each_active_iommu(iommu, drhd) {
>      /*
>       * The flush queue implementation does not perform
>       * page-selective invalidations that are required for efficient
>       * TLB flushes in virtual environments.  The benefit of batching
>       * is likely to be much lower than the overhead of synchronizing
>       * the virtual and physical IOMMU page-tables.
>       */
>      if (!intel_iommu_strict && cap_caching_mode(iommu->cap)) {
>          pr_warn("IOMMU batching is disabled due to virtualization");
>          intel_iommu_strict = 1;
>      }
>      ...
> }
> 
> I need to change that. How about this:
> 
> bool print_warning = false;
> 
> for_each_active_iommu(iommu, drhd) {
>      /*
>       * The flush queue implementation does not perform
>       * page-selective invalidations that are required for efficient
>       * TLB flushes in virtual environments.  The benefit of batching
>       * is likely to be much lower than the overhead of synchronizing
>       * the virtual and physical IOMMU page-tables.
>       */
>      if (!print_warning && cap_caching_mode(iommu->cap)) {
>          pr_warn("IOMMU batching disallowed due to virtualization\n");
>          iommu_set_dma_strict(true);
>          print_warning = true;
>      }
>      ...
> }
> 
> or use pr_warn_once().

Maybe even downgrade it to pr_info_once(), since AIUI it's not really 
anything scary?

I suppose you could technically fake up a domain on the stack to get the 
global setting out of iommu_get_dma_strict(), or perhaps give 
iommu_set_dma_strict() a cheeky return value to indicate what the 
previous setting was, in order to suppress the message entirely if 
strict is already set, but I'm not at all convinced it's worth the bother.

Robin.
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

  reply	other threads:[~2021-06-17 19:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-16 11:03 [PATCH v13 0/6] iommu: Enhance IOMMU default DMA mode build options John Garry
2021-06-16 11:03 ` John Garry
2021-06-16 11:03 ` [PATCH v13 1/6] iommu: Deprecate Intel and AMD cmdline methods to enable strict mode John Garry
2021-06-16 11:03   ` John Garry
2021-06-17 19:01   ` Robin Murphy
2021-06-17 19:01     ` Robin Murphy
2021-06-18  7:43     ` John Garry
2021-06-18  7:43       ` John Garry
2021-06-16 11:03 ` [PATCH v13 2/6] iommu: Print strict or lazy mode at init time John Garry
2021-06-16 11:03   ` John Garry
2021-06-16 11:03 ` [PATCH v13 3/6] iommu: Enhance IOMMU default DMA mode build options John Garry
2021-06-16 11:03   ` John Garry
2021-06-16 11:03 ` [PATCH v13 4/6] iommu/vt-d: Add support for " John Garry
2021-06-16 11:03   ` John Garry
2021-06-17  7:32   ` Lu Baolu
2021-06-17  7:32     ` Lu Baolu
2021-06-17  8:00     ` John Garry
2021-06-17  8:00       ` John Garry
2021-06-17 19:03       ` Robin Murphy [this message]
2021-06-17 19:03         ` Robin Murphy
2021-06-18  1:46       ` Lu Baolu
2021-06-18  1:46         ` Lu Baolu
2021-06-18  7:31         ` John Garry
2021-06-18  7:31           ` John Garry
2021-06-16 11:03 ` [PATCH v13 5/6] iommu/amd: " John Garry
2021-06-16 11:03   ` John Garry
2021-06-16 11:03 ` [PATCH v13 6/6] iommu: Remove mode argument from iommu_set_dma_strict() John Garry
2021-06-16 11:03   ` John Garry
2021-06-17  7:36   ` Lu Baolu
2021-06-17  7:36     ` Lu Baolu
2021-06-17  7:41     ` John Garry
2021-06-17  7:41       ` John Garry
2021-06-18  1:52       ` Lu Baolu
2021-06-18  1:52         ` Lu Baolu
2021-06-17 18:56     ` Robin Murphy
2021-06-17 18:56       ` Robin Murphy
2021-06-18  1:51       ` Lu Baolu
2021-06-18  1:51         ` 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=cc22fd7e-2cb6-d33a-33ab-bbca0a389507@arm.com \
    --to=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=chenxiang66@hisilicon.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
    --cc=thunder.leizhen@huawei.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /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: link
Be 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.