linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] iommu/vt-d: Avoid superfluous IOTLB tracking in lazy mode

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>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB527646D3824A1E219435F3EF8CDB9@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Feb 2023 09:18:14 +0000
From:   "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To:     Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
CC:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Kumar, Sanjay K" <sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com>,
        "Robin Murphy" <robin.murphy@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] iommu/vt-d: Avoid superfluous IOTLB tracking in lazy mode

> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 2:46 PM
> 
> On 2023/2/6 11:48, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> >> Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2023 2:32 PM
> >>
> >> On 2023/2/4 7:04, Jacob Pan wrote:
> >>> Intel IOMMU driver implements IOTLB flush queue with domain selective
> >>> or PASID selective invalidations. In this case there's no need to track
> >>> IOVA page range and sync IOTLBs, which may cause significant
> >> performance
> >>> hit.
> >>
> >> [Add cc Robin]
> >>
> >> If I understand this patch correctly, this might be caused by below
> >> helper:
> >>
> >> /**
> >>    * iommu_iotlb_gather_add_page - Gather for page-based TLB
> invalidation
> >>    * @domain: IOMMU domain to be invalidated
> >>    * @gather: TLB gather data
> >>    * @iova: start of page to invalidate
> >>    * @size: size of page to invalidate
> >>    *
> >>    * Helper for IOMMU drivers to build invalidation commands based on
> >> individual
> >>    * pages, or with page size/table level hints which cannot be gathered
> >> if they
> >>    * differ.
> >>    */
> >> static inline void iommu_iotlb_gather_add_page(struct iommu_domain
> >> *domain,
> >>                                                  struct
> >> iommu_iotlb_gather *gather,
> >>                                                  unsigned long iova,
> >> size_t size)
> >> {
> >>           /*
> >>            * If the new page is disjoint from the current range or is
> >> mapped at
> >>            * a different granularity, then sync the TLB so that the gather
> >>            * structure can be rewritten.
> >>            */
> >>           if ((gather->pgsize && gather->pgsize != size) ||
> >>               iommu_iotlb_gather_is_disjoint(gather, iova, size))
> >>                   iommu_iotlb_sync(domain, gather);
> >>
> >>           gather->pgsize = size;
> >>           iommu_iotlb_gather_add_range(gather, iova, size);
> >> }
> >>
> >> As the comments for iommu_iotlb_gather_is_disjoint() says,
> >>
> >> "...For many IOMMUs, flushing the IOMMU in this case is better
> >>    than merging the two, which might lead to unnecessary invalidations.
> >>    ..."
> >>
> >> So, perhaps the right fix for this performance issue is to add
> >>
> >> 	if (!gather->queued)
> >>
> >> in iommu_iotlb_gather_add_page() or iommu_iotlb_gather_is_disjoint()?
> >> It should benefit other arch's as well.
> >>
> >
> > There are only two callers of this helper: intel and arm-smmu-v3.
> >
> > Looks other drivers just implements direct flush via
> io_pgtable_tlb_add_page().
> >
> > and their unmap callback typically does:
> >
> > if (!iommu_iotlb_gather_queued(gather))
> > 	io_pgtable_tlb_add_page();
> >
> > from this angle it's same policy as Jacob's does, i.e. if it's already
> > queued then no need to further call optimization for direct flush.
> 
> Perhaps we can use iommu_iotlb_gather_queued() to replace direct
> gather->queued check in this patch as well?
> 

yes