[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <abea92b0-7e6c-a3c8-fef3-bc8aabe93436@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 12:18:01 +0000
From: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
"Will Deacon" <will@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
"Guohanjun (Hanjun Guo)" <guohanjun@...wei.com>
CC: iommu <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Saravana Kannan" <saravanak@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: arm64 iommu groups issue
+
On 19/09/2019 15:35, John Garry wrote:
> On 19/09/2019 14:25, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> When the port eventually probes it gets a new, separate group.
>>>
>>> This all seems to be as the built-in module init ordering is as
>>> follows: pcieport drv, smmu drv, mlx5 drv
>>>
>>> I notice that if I build the mlx5 drv as a ko and insert after boot,
>>> all functions + pcieport are in the same group:
>>>
>>> [ 11.530046] hisi_sas_v2_hw HISI0162:01: Adding to iommu group 0
>>> [ 17.301093] hns_dsaf HISI00B2:00: Adding to iommu group 1
>>> [ 18.743600] ehci-platform PNP0D20:00: Adding to iommu group 2
>>> [ 20.212284] pcieport 0002:f8:00.0: Adding to iommu group 3
>>> [ 20.356303] pcieport 0004:88:00.0: Adding to iommu group 4
>>> [ 20.493337] pcieport 0005:78:00.0: Adding to iommu group 5
>>> [ 20.702999] pcieport 000a:10:00.0: Adding to iommu group 6
>>> [ 20.859183] pcieport 000c:20:00.0: Adding to iommu group 7
>>> [ 20.996140] pcieport 000d:30:00.0: Adding to iommu group 8
>>> [ 21.152637] serial 0002:f9:00.0: Adding to iommu group 3
>>> [ 21.346991] serial 0002:f9:00.1: Adding to iommu group 3
>>> [ 100.754306] mlx5_core 000a:11:00.0: Adding to iommu group 6
>>> [ 101.420156] mlx5_core 000a:11:00.1: Adding to iommu group 6
>>> [ 292.481714] mlx5_core 000a:11:00.2: Adding to iommu group 6
>>> [ 293.281061] mlx5_core 000a:11:00.3: Adding to iommu group 6
>>>
>>> This does seem like a problem for arm64 platforms which don't support
>>> ACS, yet enable an SMMU. Maybe also a problem even if they do support
>>> ACS.
>>>
>>> Opinion?
>>
>
> Hi Robin,
>
>> Yeah, this is less than ideal.
>
> For sure. Our production D05 boards don't ship with the SMMU enabled in
> BIOS, but it would be slightly concerning in this regard if they did.
>
> > One way to bodge it might be to make
>> pci_device_group() also walk downwards to see if any non-ACS-isolated
>> children already have a group, rather than assuming that groups get
>> allocated in hierarchical order, but that's far from ideal.
>
> Agree.
>
> My own workaround was to hack the mentioned iort code to defer the PF
> probe if the parent port had also yet to probe.
>
>>
>> The underlying issue is that, for historical reasons, OF/IORT-based
>> IOMMU drivers have ended up with group allocation being tied to endpoint
>> driver probing via the dma_configure() mechanism (long story short,
>> driver probe is the only thing which can be delayed in order to wait for
>> a specific IOMMU instance to be ready).However, in the meantime, the
>> IOMMU API internals have evolved sufficiently that I think there's a way
>> to really put things right - I have the spark of an idea which I'll try
>> to sketch out ASAP...
>>
>
> OK, great.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>> Robin.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists