From: "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
iommu <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: LinuxArm <linuxarm@huawei.com>, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
Libin <huawei.libin@huawei.com>,
John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: fix unexpected CMD_SYNC timeout
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 16:21:17 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5B7533FD.20903@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6027cd67-7c76-673c-082f-8dd0b7a575b0@arm.com>
On 2018/8/15 20:26, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 15/08/18 11:23, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> The condition "(int)(VAL - sync_idx) >= 0" to break loop in function
>> __arm_smmu_sync_poll_msi requires that sync_idx must be increased
>> monotonously according to the sequence of the CMDs in the cmdq.
>>
>> But ".msidata = atomic_inc_return_relaxed(&smmu->sync_nr)" is not protected
>> by spinlock, so the following scenarios may appear:
>> cpu0 cpu1
>> msidata=0
>> msidata=1
>> insert cmd1
>> insert cmd0
>> smmu execute cmd1
>> smmu execute cmd0
>> poll timeout, because msidata=1 is overridden by
>> cmd0, that means VAL=0, sync_idx=1.
>>
>> This is not a functional problem, just make the caller wait for a long
>> time until TIMEOUT. It's rare to happen, because any other CMD_SYNCs
>> during the waiting period will break it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 12 ++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> index 1d64710..3f5c236 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> @@ -566,7 +566,7 @@ struct arm_smmu_device {
>>
>> int gerr_irq;
>> int combined_irq;
>> - atomic_t sync_nr;
>> + u32 sync_nr;
>>
>> unsigned long ias; /* IPA */
>> unsigned long oas; /* PA */
>> @@ -775,6 +775,11 @@ static int queue_remove_raw(struct arm_smmu_queue *q, u64 *ent)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static inline void arm_smmu_cmdq_sync_set_msidata(u64 *cmd, u32 msidata)
>
> If we *are* going to go down this route then I think it would make sense to move the msiaddr and CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS_MSI logic here as well; i.e. arm_smmu_cmdq_build_cmd() always generates a "normal" SEV-based sync command, then calling this guy would convert it to an MSI-based one. As-is, having bits of mutually-dependent data handled across two separate places just seems too messy and error-prone.
Yes, How about create a new function "arm_smmu_cmdq_build_sync_msi_cmd"?
static inline
void arm_smmu_cmdq_build_sync_msi_cmd(u64 *cmd, struct arm_smmu_cmdq_ent *ent)
{
cmd[0] = FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_0_OP, ent->opcode);
cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS, CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS_IRQ);
cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_MSH, ARM_SMMU_SH_ISH);
cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_MSIATTR, ARM_SMMU_MEMATTR_OIWB);
cmd[1] = ent->sync.msiaddr & CMDQ_SYNC_1_MSIADDR_MASK;
}
>
> That said, I still don't think that just building the whole command under the lock is really all that bad - even when it doesn't get optimised into one of the assignments that memset you call out is only a single "stp xzr, xzr, ...", and a couple of extra branches doesn't seem a huge deal compared to the DSB and MMIO accesses (and potentially polling) that we're about to do anyway. I've tried hacking things up enough to convince GCC to inline a specialisation of the relevant switch case when ent->opcode is known, and that reduces the "overhead" down to just a handful of ALU instructions. I still need to try cleaning said hack up and double-check that it doesn't have any adverse impact on all the other SMMUv3 stuff in development, but watch this space...
>
> Robin.
>
>> +{
>> + cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_MSIDATA, msidata);
>> +}
>> +
>> /* High-level queue accessors */
>> static int arm_smmu_cmdq_build_cmd(u64 *cmd, struct arm_smmu_cmdq_ent *ent)
>> {
>> @@ -836,7 +841,6 @@ static int arm_smmu_cmdq_build_cmd(u64 *cmd, struct arm_smmu_cmdq_ent *ent)
>> cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS, CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS_SEV);
>> cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_MSH, ARM_SMMU_SH_ISH);
>> cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_MSIATTR, ARM_SMMU_MEMATTR_OIWB);
>> - cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_MSIDATA, ent->sync.msidata);
>> cmd[1] |= ent->sync.msiaddr & CMDQ_SYNC_1_MSIADDR_MASK;
>> break;
>> default:
>> @@ -947,7 +951,6 @@ static int __arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_sync_msi(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>> struct arm_smmu_cmdq_ent ent = {
>> .opcode = CMDQ_OP_CMD_SYNC,
>> .sync = {
>> - .msidata = atomic_inc_return_relaxed(&smmu->sync_nr),
>> .msiaddr = virt_to_phys(&smmu->sync_count),
>> },
>> };
>> @@ -955,6 +958,8 @@ static int __arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_sync_msi(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>> arm_smmu_cmdq_build_cmd(cmd, &ent);
>>
>> spin_lock_irqsave(&smmu->cmdq.lock, flags);
>> + ent.sync.msidata = ++smmu->sync_nr;
>> + arm_smmu_cmdq_sync_set_msidata(cmd, ent.sync.msidata);
>> arm_smmu_cmdq_insert_cmd(smmu, cmd);
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&smmu->cmdq.lock, flags);
>>
>> @@ -2179,7 +2184,6 @@ static int arm_smmu_init_structures(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>> {
>> int ret;
>>
>> - atomic_set(&smmu->sync_nr, 0);
>> ret = arm_smmu_init_queues(smmu);
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>> --
>> 1.8.3
>>
>>
>
> .
>
--
Thanks!
BestRegards
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-16 8:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-08-15 10:23 [PATCH v3 0/2] bugfix and optimization about CMD_SYNC Zhen Lei
2018-08-15 10:23 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: fix unexpected CMD_SYNC timeout Zhen Lei
2018-08-15 12:26 ` Robin Murphy
2018-08-15 13:00 ` Will Deacon
2018-08-15 18:08 ` John Garry
2018-08-16 4:11 ` Leizhen (ThunderTown)
2018-08-16 8:21 ` Leizhen (ThunderTown) [this message]
2018-08-16 9:18 ` Will Deacon
2018-08-16 9:27 ` Robin Murphy
2018-08-19 7:02 ` Leizhen (ThunderTown)
2018-09-05 1:46 ` Leizhen (ThunderTown)
2018-08-15 10:23 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: avoid redundant CMD_SYNCs if possible Zhen Lei
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=5B7533FD.20903@huawei.com \
--to=thunder.leizhen@huawei.com \
--cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
--cc=huawei.libin@huawei.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.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).