linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] iommu/io-pgtable-arm: Add nents_per_pgtable in struct io_pgtable

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 09:55:37 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Cc: "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
	"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
	"jean-philippe@...aro.org" <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
	Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] iommu/io-pgtable-arm: Add nents_per_pgtable in
 struct io_pgtable_cfg

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 04:11:09PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > prevented strongly. Broadly speaking if SVA is pushing too high an
> > invalidation workload then we need to agressively trim it, and do so
> > dynamically. Certainly we should not have a tunable that has to be set
> > right to avoid soft lockup.
> > 
> > A tunable to improve performance, perhaps, but not to achieve basic
> > correctness.
> 
> So, should we make an optional tunable only for those who care
> about performance? Though I think having a tunable would just
> fix both issues.

When the soft lockup issue is solved you can consider if a tunable is
still interesting..
 
> > Maybe it is really just a simple thing - compute how many invalidation
> > commands are needed, if they don't all fit in the current queue space,
> > then do an invalidate all instead?
> 
> The queue could actually have a large space. But one large-size
> invalidation would be divided into batches that have to execute
> back-to-back. And the batch size is 64 commands in 64-bit case,
> which might be too small as a cap.

Yes, some notable code reorganizing would be needed to implement
something like this

Broadly I'd sketch sort of:

 - Figure out how fast the HW can execute a lot of commands
 - The above should drive some XX maximum number of commands, maybe we
   need to measure at boot, IDK
 - Strongly time bound SVA invalidation:
   * No more than XX commands, if more needed then push invalidate
     all
   * All commands must fit in the available queue space, if more
     needed then push invalidate all
 - The total queue depth must not be larger than YY based on the
   retire rate so that even a full queue will complete invalidation
   below the target time.

A tunable indicating what the SVA time bound target should be might be
appropriate..

Jason