From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
Ethan Zhao <haifeng.zhao@linux.intel.com>,
"bhelgaas@google.com" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
"robin.murphy@arm.com" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
"jgg@ziepe.ca" <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc: baolu.lu@linux.intel.com,
"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: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:48:56 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46e0c704-cc77-4d23-9503-0d6d5d07bb26@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BN9PR11MB52761CC3E5F08D4B7BAD7F918C7E2@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
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.
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:[~2024-01-29 14:49 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 [this message]
2024-01-30 3:28 ` Tian, Kevin
2024-01-30 8:43 ` Ethan Zhao
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=46e0c704-cc77-4d23-9503-0d6d5d07bb26@linux.intel.com \
--to=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=haifeng.zhao@linux.intel.com \
--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).