[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240504101651.7de5106f@meshulam.tesarici.cz>
Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 10:16:51 +0200
From: Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz>
To: "T.J. Mercier" <tjmercier@...gle.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin"
<hpa@...or.com>, hch@...radead.org, robin.murphy@....com, joro@...tes.org,
will@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, isaacmanjarres@...gle.com,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] swiotlb: iommu/dma: Clarify swiotlb options apply only
to dma-direct
On Fri, 3 May 2024 18:35:26 +0000
"T.J. Mercier" <tjmercier@...gle.com> wrote:
> IOMMU implementations now sometimes bounce memory through SWIOTLB to
> achieve cacheline alignment [1], or prevent DMA attacks by untrusted
> devices [2]. These uses of SWIOTLB differ conceptually from historical
> use which was a solution to the problem of device addressing
> limitations that prevent DMA to some portion of system memory
> (typically beyond 4 GiB). IOMMUs also solve the problem of device
> addressing limitations and therefore eliminate the need for SWIOTLB for
> that purpose. However as mentioned, IOMMUs can use SWIOTLB for other
> purposes.
>
> The swiotlb kernel command line parameter does not impact IOMMU related
> use of SWIOTLB, and that is intentional. IOMMUs cannot be forced to use
> SWIOTLB for all buffers. Update the documentation for the swiotlb
> parameter to clarify that SWIOTLB use can only be forced in scenarios
> where an IOMMU is not involved.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230612153201.554742-16-catalin.marinas@arm.com
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20190906061452.30791-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com/
> Signed-off-by: T.J. Mercier <tjmercier@...gle.com>
> ---
> Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 1 +
> Documentation/arch/x86/x86_64/boot-options.rst | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> index 213d0719e2b7..84c582ac246c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> @@ -6486,6 +6486,7 @@
> to a power of 2.
> force -- force using of bounce buffers even if they
> wouldn't be automatically used by the kernel
> + where a hardware IOMMU is not involved
> noforce -- Never use bounce buffers (for debugging)
>
> switches= [HW,M68k,EARLY]
Yes, this part is correct. SWIOTLB cannot be forced if there is an IOMMU.
> diff --git a/Documentation/arch/x86/x86_64/boot-options.rst b/Documentation/arch/x86/x86_64/boot-options.rst
> index 137432d34109..066b4bc81583 100644
> --- a/Documentation/arch/x86/x86_64/boot-options.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/arch/x86/x86_64/boot-options.rst
> @@ -285,7 +285,7 @@ iommu options only relevant to the AMD GART hardware IOMMU:
> Always panic when IOMMU overflows.
>
> iommu options only relevant to the software bounce buffering (SWIOTLB) IOMMU
> -implementation:
> +implementation where a hardware IOMMU is not involved:
>
> swiotlb=<slots>[,force,noforce]
> <slots>
But this part needs some improvement. The "swiotlb" option is not
entirely ignored if there is a hardware IOMMU. For example, the size of
the SWIOTLB can be adjusted using "swiotlb=<slots>", and since SWIOTLB
can be used by IOMMUs for other purposes (as you correctly note in the
commit message), this setting is relevant even where a hardware IOMMU
is involved.
Petr T
Powered by blists - more mailing lists