From: Ethan Zhao <haifeng.zhao@linux.intel.com>
To: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
"bhelgaas@google.com" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
"robin.murphy@arm.com" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
"jgg@ziepe.ca" <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc: "dwmw2@infradead.org" <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
"will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
"lukas@wunner.de" <lukas@wunner.de>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
"iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 5/5] iommu/vt-d: improve ITE fault handling if target device isn't present
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:43:25 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2e43c304-2851-45d4-bbaa-ea1087e85161@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <46e0c704-cc77-4d23-9503-0d6d5d07bb26@linux.intel.com>
On 1/29/2024 10:48 PM, Baolu Lu wrote:
> 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.
>
You said async-interrupt model is a bad idea, how bad is it ? I wonder if
the hardware and VT-d spec definition could support it pefectly or not.
at least, would never get in trouble about balance timeout & wakeup
watchdog.
Yes, the VT-d DMAR driver wasn't inited as async-interrupt model from
begnining...
Thanks,
Ethan
> 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-30 8:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-29 3:49 [PATCH v12 0/5] fix vt-d hard lockup when hotplug ATS capable device Ethan Zhao
2024-01-29 3:49 ` [PATCH v12 1/5] PCI: make pci_dev_is_disconnected() helper public for other drivers Ethan Zhao
2024-01-29 8:50 ` Tian, Kevin
2024-01-30 5:23 ` Ethan Zhao
2024-01-30 5:25 ` Ethan Zhao
2024-01-30 6:23 ` Tian, Kevin
2024-01-29 3:49 ` [PATCH v12 2/5] iommu/vt-d: don't issue ATS Invalidation request when device is disconnected Ethan Zhao
2024-01-29 8:53 ` Tian, Kevin
2024-01-29 9:32 ` Yi Liu
2024-01-30 5:37 ` Ethan Zhao
2024-01-31 4:25 ` Yi Liu
2024-01-31 5:25 ` Ethan Zhao
2024-01-29 3:49 ` [PATCH v12 3/5] iommu/vt-d: simplify parameters of qi_submit_sync() ATS invalidation callers Ethan Zhao
2024-01-29 9:37 ` Yi Liu
2024-01-30 5:43 ` Ethan Zhao
2024-01-29 3:49 ` [PATCH v12 4/5] iommu/vt-d: pass pdev parameter for qi_check_fault() and refactor callers Ethan Zhao
2024-01-29 8:58 ` Tian, Kevin
2024-01-30 7:30 ` Ethan Zhao
2024-02-08 7:15 ` Dan Carpenter
2024-02-09 2:08 ` Ethan Zhao
2024-01-29 3:49 ` [PATCH v12 5/5] iommu/vt-d: improve ITE fault handling if target device isn't present Ethan Zhao
2024-01-29 9:06 ` Tian, Kevin
2024-01-29 9:21 ` Yi Liu
2024-01-30 5:12 ` Ethan Zhao
2024-01-30 6:22 ` Tian, Kevin
2024-01-30 8:15 ` Ethan Zhao
2024-01-30 8:43 ` Tian, Kevin
2024-01-30 9:13 ` Ethan Zhao
2024-01-30 9:24 ` Tian, Kevin
2024-01-31 5:42 ` Ethan Zhao
2024-01-30 16:29 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2024-01-31 6:21 ` Baolu Lu
2024-02-01 19:34 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2024-02-15 7:37 ` Baolu Lu
2024-01-29 14:48 ` Baolu Lu
2024-01-30 3:28 ` Tian, Kevin
2024-01-30 8:43 ` Ethan Zhao [this message]
2024-01-29 9:33 ` Yi Liu
2024-01-29 5:16 ` [PATCH v12 0/5] fix vt-d hard lockup when hotplug ATS capable device Ethan Zhao
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=2e43c304-2851-45d4-bbaa-ea1087e85161@linux.intel.com \
--to=haifeng.zhao@linux.intel.com \
--cc=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukas@wunner.de \
--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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).