Re: [PATCH RFC v1 01/11] uapi/virtio-iommu: Add page request grp-id and flags information

[Vivek Kumar Gautam <vivek.gautam@arm.com>]

Hi Jean,


On 9/21/21 9:28 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> Hi Vivek,
> 
> Thanks a lot for your work on this

Thanks a lot for taking a look at it. I hope that most of the changes in 
this series and the nested page table series [1] are independent of the 
presently on-going /dev/iommu proposal, and can be separately reviewed.

Please find my comments inline below.

> 
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 03:21:37PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>> Add fault information for group-id and necessary flags for page
>> request faults that can be handled by page fault handler in
>> virtio-iommu driver.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@arm.com>
>> Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
>> Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
>> Cc: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
>> Cc: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
>> Cc: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
>> Cc: Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
>> Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
>> Cc: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h | 13 +++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h
>> index f8bf927a0689..accc3318ce46 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h
>> @@ -307,14 +307,27 @@ struct virtio_iommu_req_invalidate {
>>   #define VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_F_DMA_UNRECOV	1
>>   #define VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_F_PAGE_REQ		2
>>   
>> +#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_PRQ_F_PASID_VALID		(1 << 0)
>> +#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_PRQ_F_LAST_PAGE		(1 << 1)
>> +#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_PRQ_F_PRIV_DATA		(1 << 2)
>> +#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_PRQ_F_NEEDS_PASID		(1 << 3)
> 
> I don't think this one is necessary here. The NEEDS_PASID flags added by
> commit 970471914c67 ("iommu: Allow page responses without PASID") mainly
> helps Linux keep track of things internally. It does tell the fault
> handler whether to reply with PASID or not, but we don't need that here.
> The virtio-iommu driver knows whether a PASID is required by looking at
> the "PRG Response PASID Required" bit in the PCIe capability. For non-PCIe
> faults (e.g. SMMU stall), I'm guessing we'll need a PROBE property to
> declare that the endpoint supports recoverable faults anyway, so "PASID
> required in response" can go through there as well.

Sure, I will remove this flag, and rather read the PCIe cap to find out 
if PASID is required or not. After this series, I will follow up with 
the non-PCIe fault handling.

> 
>> +
>> +#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_UNREC_F_PASID_VALID		(1 << 0)
>> +#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_UNREC_F_ADDR_VALID		(1 << 1)
>> +#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_UNREC_F_FETCH_ADDR_VALID	(1 << 2)
>> +
>>   struct virtio_iommu_fault {
>>   	__u8					reason;
>>   	__u8					reserved[3];
>>   	__le16					flt_type;
>>   	__u8					reserved2[2];
>> +	/* flags is actually permission flags */
> 
> It's also used for declaring validity of fields.
> VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_F_ADDRESS already tells whether the address field is
> valid, so all the other flags introduced by this patch can go in here.

Sure, will remove pr_evt_flags field, and move all the flags to 'flags'.

> 
>>   	__le32					flags;
>> +	/* flags for PASID and Page request handling info */
>> +	__le32					pr_evt_flags;
>>   	__le32					endpoint;
>>   	__le32					pasid;
>> +	__le32					grpid;
> 
> I'm not sure why we made it 32-bit in Linux UAPI, it's a little wasteful.
> PCIe PRGI is 9-bits and SMMU STAG is 16-bits. Since the scope of the grpid
> is the endpoint, 16-bit means 64k in-flight faults per endpoint, which
> seems more than enough.

Right, I will update this to 16-bits field. It won't be okay to update 
the iommu uAPI now, right?

> 
> New fields must be appended at the end of the struct, because old drivers
> will expect to find the 'endpoint' field at this offset. You could remove
> 'reserved3' while adding 'grpid', to keep the struct layout.

Sure, will update this.

> 
>>   	__u8					reserved3[4];
>>   	__le64					address;
>>   	__u8					reserved4[8];
> 
> 
> So the base structure, currently in the spec, looks like this:
> 
> 	struct virtio_iommu_fault {
> 		u8   reason;
> 		u8   reserved[3];
> 		le32 flags;
> 		le32 endpoint;
> 		le32 reserved1;
> 		le64 address;
> 	};
> 
> 	#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_F_READ	(1 << 0)
> 	#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_F_WRITE	(1 << 1)
> 	#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_F_ADDRESS	(1 << 8)
> 
> The extended struct could be:
> 
> 	struct virtio_iommu_fault {
> 		u8   reason;
> 		u8   reserved[3];
> 		le32 flags;
> 		le32 endpoint;
> 		le32 pasid;
> 		le64 address;
> 		/* Page request group ID */
> 		le16 group_id;
> 		u8   reserved1[6];
> 		/* For VT-d private data */
> 		le64 private_data[2];
> 	};
> 
> 	#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_F_READ	(1 << 0)
> 	#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_F_WRITE	(1 << 1)
> 	#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_F_EXEC	(1 << 2)
> 	#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_F_PRIVILEGED	(1 << 3)
> 	/* Last fault in group */
> 	#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_F_LAST	(1 << 4)
> 	/* Fault is a recoverable page request and requires a response */
> 	#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_F_PAGE_REQ	(1 << 5)
> 
> 	/* address field is valid */
> 	#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_F_ADDRESS	(1 << 8)
> 	/* pasid field is valid */
> 	#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_F_PASID	(1 << 9)
> 	/* group_id field is valid */
> 	#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_F_GROUP_ID	(1 << 10)
> 	/* private data field is valid */
> 	#define VIRTIO_IOMMU_FAULT_F_PRIV_DATA	(1 << 11)

Thanks Jean for summarizing it here. I will update the patch.

Best regards
Vivek

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel