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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJF2gTTKFwRN6vG3+fQK8BRFskeURjv-Ziv_qb7nc9MSKw0bLA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 14 Sep 2019 16:49:40 +0800
From:   Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, julien.thierry@....com,
        aou@...s.berkeley.edu, james.morse@....com,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, suzuki.poulose@....com,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Anup Patel <anup.Patel@....com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@....com>,
        Julien Grall <julien.grall@....com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>, gary@...yguo.net,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        christoffer.dall@....com, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 11/14] arm64: Move the ASID allocator code in a
 separate file

Here is the presentation, any comments is welcome.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1sc295JznVAfDIPieAqzjcyUkcHnNFQsK8FFqdoCY854/edit?usp=sharing

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:13 PM Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Another idea is seperate remote TLB invalidate into two instructions:
>
>  - sfence.vma.b.asyc
>  - sfence.vma.b.barrier // wait all async TLB invalidate operations finished for all harts.
>
> (I remember who mentioned me separate them into two instructions after session. Anup? Is the idea right ?)
>
> Actually, I never consider asyc TLB invalidate before, because current our light iommu did not need it.
>
> Thx all people attend the session :) Let's continue the talk.
>
>
> Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org> 于 2019年9月12日周四 22:59写道：
>>
>> Thx Will for reply.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 3:03 PM Will Deacon <will@...nel.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@...nel.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.brucker@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.
>> Just as I've said in the session that IOTLB invalidate delay is
>> another topic, My main proposal is to introduce stage1.pgd and
>> stage2.pgd as address space identifiers between different TLB systems
>> based on vmid, asid. My last part of sildes will show you how to
>> translate stage1/2.pgd to as/vmid in PCI ATS system and the method
>> could work with SMMU-v3 and intel Vt-d. (It's regret for me there is
>> no time to show you the whole slides.)
>>
>> In our light IOMMU implementation, there's no IOTLB invalidate delay
>> problem. Becasue IOMMU is very close to CPU MMU and interconnect's
>> delay is the same with SMP CPUs MMU (no PCI, VM supported).
>>
>> To solve the problem, we could define a async mode in sfence.vma.b to
>> slove the problem and finished with per_cpu_irq/exception.
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards
>>  Guo Ren
>>
>> ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/



-- 
Best Regards
 Guo Ren

ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/