[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231206153809.GS2692119@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2023 11:38:09 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, ankita@...dia.com,
Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>, oliver.upton@...ux.dev,
suzuki.poulose@....com, yuzenghui@...wei.com, will@...nel.org,
ardb@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, gshan@...hat.com,
aniketa@...dia.com, cjia@...dia.com, kwankhede@...dia.com,
targupta@...dia.com, vsethi@...dia.com, acurrid@...dia.com,
apopple@...dia.com, jhubbard@...dia.com, danw@...dia.com,
mochs@...dia.com, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] KVM: arm64: allow the VM to select DEVICE_* and
NORMAL_NC for IO memory
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 04:18:05PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 11:05:56AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 02:49:02PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 03:48:22PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 07:24:37PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 12:43:18PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > > > What if we change vfio-pci to use pgprot_device() like it already
> > > > > > really should and say the pgprot_noncached() is enforced as
> > > > > > DEVICE_nGnRnE and pgprot_device() may be DEVICE_nGnRE or NORMAL_NC?
> > > > > > Would that be acceptable?
> > > > >
> > > > > pgprot_device() needs to stay as Device, otherwise you'd get speculative
> > > > > reads with potential side-effects.
> > > >
> > > > I do not mean to change pgprot_device() I mean to detect the
> > > > difference via pgprot_device() vs pgprot_noncached(). They put a
> > > > different value in the PTE that we can sense. It is very hacky.
> > >
> > > Ah, ok, it does look hacky though (as is the alternative of coming up
> > > with a new specific pgprot_*() that KVM can treat differently).
> > >
> > > BTW, on those Mellanox devices that require different attributes within
> > > a BAR, do they have a problem with speculative reads causing
> > > side-effects?
> >
> > Yes. We definitely have had that problem in the past on older
> > devices. VFIO must map the BAR using pgprot_device/noncached() into
> > the VMM, no other choice is functionally OK.
>
> Were those BARs tagged as prefetchable or non-prefetchable ? I assume the
> latter but please let me know if I am guessing wrong.
I don't know it was quite old HW. Probably.
Just because a BAR is not marked as prefetchable doesn't mean that the
device can't use NORMAL_NC on subsets of it.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists