[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZN+w3fahQpM2W9Yx@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 10:56:45 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
"cohuck@...hat.com" <cohuck@...hat.com>,
"eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com" <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
"chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com" <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>,
"yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com" <yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com>,
"peterx@...hat.com" <peterx@...hat.com>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com"
<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
"lulu@...hat.com" <lulu@...hat.com>,
"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"Duan, Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/12] iommu/vt-d: Add iotlb flush for nested domain
On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 01:56:54PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 11:18:46PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 09:45:21AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> >
> > > > But if stepping back a bit supporting an array-based non-native format
> > > > could simplify the uAPI design and allows code sharing for array among
> > > > vendor drivers. You can still keep the entry as native format then the
> > > > only difference with future in-kernel fast path is just on walking an array
> > > > vs. walking a ring. And VMM doesn't need to expose non-invalidate
> > > > cmds to the kernel and then be skipped.
> > >
> > > Ah, so we might still design the uAPI to be ring based at this
> > > moment, yet don't support a case CONS > 0 to leave that to an
> > > upgrade in the future.
> > >
> > > I will try estimating a bit how complicated to implement the
> > > ring, to see if we could just start with that. Otherwise, will
> > > just start with an array.
> >
> > I drafted a uAPI structure for a ring-based SW queue. While I am
> > trying an implementation, I'd like to collect some comments at the
> > structure, to see if it overall makes sense.
>
> I don't think a ring makes alot of sense at this point. The only thing
> it optimizes is a system call if the kernel needs to wrap around the
> tail of the ring. It would possibly be better to have a small gather
> list than try to describe the ring logic..
>
> Further, the VMM already has to process it, so the vmm already knows
> what ops are going to kernel are not. The VMM can just organize them
> in a linear list in one way or another. We need to copy and read this
> stuff in the VMM anyhow to protect against a hostile VM.
OK. Then an linear array it is.
> > One thing that I couldn't add to this common structure for SMMU
> > is the hardware error code, which should be encoded in the higher
> > bits of the consumer index register, following the SMMU spec:
> > ERR, bits [30:24] Error reason code.
> > - When a command execution error is detected, ERR is set to a
> > reason code and then the SMMU_GERROR.CMDQ_ERR global error
> > becomes active.
> > - The value in this field is UNKNOWN when the CMDQ_ERR global
> > error is not active. This field resets to an UNKNOWN value.
>
> The invalidate ioctl should fail in some deterministic way and report
> back the error code and the highest array index that maybe could have
> triggered it.
Yea. Having an error code in the highest bits of array_index,
"array_index != array_max" could be the deterministic way to
indicate a failure. And a kernel errno could be returned also
to the invalidate ioctl.
> The highest array index sounds generic, the error code maybe is too
We could do in its and report the error code in its raw form:
__u32 out_array_index;
/* number of bits used to report error code in the returned array_index */
__u32 out_array_index_error_code_bits;
Or just:
__u32 out_array_index;
__u32 out_error_code;
Do we have to define a list of generic error code?
Thanks!
Nic
Powered by blists - more mailing lists