Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 14:00:14 +0800
From: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: "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>,
	"nicolinc@...dia.com" <nicolinc@...dia.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>, "joao.m.martins@...cle.com"
	<joao.m.martins@...cle.com>, "Zeng, Xin" <xin.zeng@...el.com>, "Zhao, Yan Y"
	<yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] iommufd: Add data structure for Intel VT-d stage-1
 cache invalidation

On 2024/1/8 12:07, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
>> Sent: Friday, January 5, 2024 10:45 PM
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 02:52:50AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>> but in reality the relation could be identified in an easy way due to a SIOV
>>>> restriction which we discussed before - shared PASID space of PF
>> disallows
>>>> assigning sibling vdev's to a same VM (otherwise no way to identify which
>>>> sibling vdev triggering an iopf when a pasid is used on both vdev's). That
>>>> restriction implies that within an iommufd context every iommufd_device
>>>> object should contain a unique struct device pointer. So PASID can be
>>>> instead ignored in the lookup then just always do iommufd_get_dev_id()
>>>> using struct device.
>>>
>>> A bit more background.
>>>
>>> Previously we thought this restriction only applies to SIOV+vSVA, as
>>> a guest process may bind to both sibling vdev's, leading to the same
>>> pasid situation.
>>>
>>> In concept w/o vSVA it's still possible to assign sibling vdev's to
>>> a same VM as each vdev is allocated with a unique pasid to mark vRID
>>> so can be differentiated from each other in the fault/error path.
>>
>> I thought the SIOV plan was that each "vdev" ie vpci function would
>> get a slice of the pRID's PASID space statically selected at creation?
>>
>> So SVA/etc doesn't matter, you reliably get a disjoint set of pRID &
>> pPASID into each VM.
>>
>>  From that view you can't identify the iommufd dev_id without knowing
>> both the pRID and pPASID which will disambiguate the different SIOV
>> iommufd dev_id instances sharing a rid.
> 
> true when assigning those instances to different VMs.
> 
> Here I was talking about assigning them to a same VM being a problem.
> with rid sharing plus same ENQCMD pPASID potentially used on both
> instances there'd be ambiguity in vSVA e.g. iopf to identify dev_id.
> 
> we agreed before on preventing sibling vdev's in one VM for above
> reason, but only as far as vSVA is concerned.
> 
> then given the new finding in err reporting I wondered whether this
> restriction should be applied to all SIOV scenarios (but irrelevant now
> with below explanation after another thinking)
> 
>>
>>> But when looking at this err code issue with Yi closely, we found
>>> there is another gap in the VT-d spec. Upon devtlb invalidation
>>> timeout the hw doesn't report pasid in the error info register. this
>>> makes it impossible to identify the source vdev if a hwpt invalidation
>>> request involves sibling vdev's from a same PF.
>>
>> Don't you know which command timed out?
> 
> unfortunately no.
> 
> for errors related to descriptor fetch the driver can tell the command
> by looking at the head pointer of the invalidation queue.
> 
> command completion is indirectly detected by inserting a wait descriptor
> as fence. completion timeout error is reported in an error register. but
> this register doesn't record pasid, nor does the command location. if there
> are multiple pending devtlb invalidation commands upon timeout
> error the spec suggests the driver to treat all of them timeout as the
> register can only record one rid.
> 
> this is kind of moot. If the driver submits only one command (plus wait)
> at a time it doesn't need hw's help to identify the timeout command.
> If the driver batches invalidation commands it must treat all timeout if
> an timeout error is reported.
> 
> from this angle whether to record pasid doesn't really matter.
> 
> intel-iommu driver doesn't batch commands. so it's possible for
> the driver to figure out the timeout device itself and identify rid plus
> pasid to find dev_id from iommufd.

based on this, even RID is unnecessary. Software should know which device
it has sent a devTLB invalidation.

-- 
Regards,
Yi Liu

Powered by blists - more mailing lists