Re: [PATCH RFC 11/14] arm64: Move the ASID allocator code in a separate file

[Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>]

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 11:18:00 PDT (-0700), will@kernel.org wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 05:03:38AM +0000, Anup Patel wrote:
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org <linux-kernel-
>> > owner@vger.kernel.org> On Behalf Of Palmer Dabbelt
>> > Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2019 7:31 PM
>> > To: will@kernel.org
>> > Cc: guoren@kernel.org; Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>;
>> > julien.thierry@arm.com; aou@eecs.berkeley.edu; james.morse@arm.com;
>> > Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>; suzuki.poulose@arm.com;
>> > marc.zyngier@arm.com; catalin.marinas@arm.com; Anup Patel
>> > <Anup.Patel@wdc.com>; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
>> > rppt@linux.ibm.com; Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>; Atish Patra
>> > <Atish.Patra@wdc.com>; julien.grall@arm.com; gary@garyguo.net; Paul
>> > Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>; christoffer.dall@arm.com; linux-
>> > riscv@lists.infradead.org; kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu; linux-arm-
>> > kernel@lists.infradead.org; iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
>> > Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 11/14] arm64: Move the ASID allocator code in a
>> > separate file
>> >
>> > On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 07:02:56 PDT (-0700), will@kernel.org wrote:
>> > > On Sun, Sep 08, 2019 at 07:52:55AM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
>> > >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 6:40 PM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
>> > >> > > I'll keep my system use the same ASID for SMP + IOMMU :P
>> > >> >
>> > >> > You will want a separate allocator for that:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190610184714.6786-2-jean-philippe.bruck
>> > >> > er@arm.com
>> > >>
>> > >> Yes, it is hard to maintain ASID between IOMMU and CPUMMU or
>> > >> different system, because it's difficult to synchronize the IO_ASID
>> > >> when the CPU ASID is rollover.
>> > >> But we could still use hardware broadcast TLB invalidation
>> > >> instruction to uniformly manage the ASID and IO_ASID, or OTHER_ASID in
>> > our IOMMU.
>> > >
>> > > That's probably a bad idea, because you'll likely stall execution on
>> > > the CPU until the IOTLB has completed invalidation. In the case of
>> > > ATS, I think an endpoint ATC is permitted to take over a minute to
>> > > respond. In reality, I suspect the worst you'll ever see would be in
>> > > the msec range, but that's still an unacceptable period of time to hold a
>> > CPU.
>> > >
>> > >> Welcome to join our disscusion:
>> > >> "Introduce an implementation of IOMMU in linux-riscv"
>> > >> 9 Sep 2019, 10:45 Jade-room-I&II (Corinthia Hotel Lisbon) RISC-V MC
>> > >
>> > > I attended this session, but it unfortunately raised many more
>> > > questions than it answered.
>> >
>> > Ya, we're a long way from figuring this out.
>>
>> For everyone's reference, here is our first attempt at RISC-V ASID allocator:
>> http://archive.lwn.net:8080/linux-kernel/20190329045111.14040-1-anup.patel@wdc.com/T/#u
>
> With a reply stating that the patch "absolutely does not work" ;)
>
> What exactly do you want people to do with that? It's an awful lot of effort
> to review this sort of stuff and given that Guo Ren is talking about sharing
> page tables between the CPU and an accelerator, maybe you're better off
> stabilising Linux for the platforms that you can actually test rather than
> getting so far ahead of yourselves that you end up with a bunch of wasted
> work on patches that probably won't get merged any time soon.
>
> Seriously, they say "walk before you can run", but this is more "crawl
> before you can fly". What's the rush?

I agree, and I think I've been pretty clear here: we're not merging this ASID 
stuff until we have a platform we can test on, particularly as the platforms we 
have now already need some wacky hacks around TLB flushing that we haven't 
gotten to the bottom of.

> Will

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