[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240619161740.GP1091770@ziepe.ca>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 13:17:40 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Zong Li <zong.li@...ive.com>
Cc: joro@...tes.org, will@...nel.org, robin.murphy@....com,
tjeznach@...osinc.com, paul.walmsley@...ive.com, palmer@...belt.com,
aou@...s.berkeley.edu, kevin.tian@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 08/10] iommu/riscv: support nested iommu for
flushing cache
On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 10:21:54PM +0800, Zong Li wrote:
> This patch implements cache_invalidate_user operation for the userspace
> to flush the hardware caches for a nested domain through iommufd.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zong Li <zong.li@...ive.com>
> ---
> drivers/iommu/riscv/iommu.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> include/uapi/linux/iommufd.h | 11 +++++
> 2 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/riscv/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/riscv/iommu.c
> index 410b236e9b24..d08eb0a2939e 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/riscv/iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/riscv/iommu.c
> @@ -1587,8 +1587,9 @@ static int riscv_iommu_attach_dev_nested(struct iommu_domain *domain, struct dev
> if (riscv_iommu_bond_link(riscv_domain, dev))
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> - riscv_iommu_iotlb_inval(riscv_domain, 0, ULONG_MAX);
> - info->dc_user.ta |= RISCV_IOMMU_PC_TA_V;
> + if (riscv_iommu_bond_link(info->domain, dev))
> + return -ENOMEM;
?? Is this in the wrong patch then? Confused
> riscv_iommu_iodir_update(iommu, dev, &info->dc_user);
>
> info->domain = riscv_domain;
> @@ -1611,13 +1612,92 @@ static void riscv_iommu_domain_free_nested(struct iommu_domain *domain)
> kfree(riscv_domain);
> }
>
> +static int riscv_iommu_fix_user_cmd(struct riscv_iommu_command *cmd,
> + unsigned int pscid, unsigned int gscid)
> +{
> + u32 opcode = FIELD_GET(RISCV_IOMMU_CMD_OPCODE, cmd->dword0);
> +
> + switch (opcode) {
> + case RISCV_IOMMU_CMD_IOTINVAL_OPCODE:
> + u32 func = FIELD_GET(RISCV_IOMMU_CMD_FUNC, cmd->dword0);
> +
> + if (func != RISCV_IOMMU_CMD_IOTINVAL_FUNC_GVMA &&
> + func != RISCV_IOMMU_CMD_IOTINVAL_FUNC_VMA) {
> + pr_warn("The IOTINVAL function: 0x%x is not supported\n",
> + func);
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + }
> +
> + if (func == RISCV_IOMMU_CMD_IOTINVAL_FUNC_GVMA) {
> + cmd->dword0 &= ~RISCV_IOMMU_CMD_FUNC;
> + cmd->dword0 |= FIELD_PREP(RISCV_IOMMU_CMD_FUNC,
> + RISCV_IOMMU_CMD_IOTINVAL_FUNC_VMA);
> + }
> +
> + cmd->dword0 &= ~(RISCV_IOMMU_CMD_IOTINVAL_PSCID |
> + RISCV_IOMMU_CMD_IOTINVAL_GSCID);
> + riscv_iommu_cmd_inval_set_pscid(cmd, pscid);
> + riscv_iommu_cmd_inval_set_gscid(cmd, gscid);
> + break;
> + case RISCV_IOMMU_CMD_IODIR_OPCODE:
> + /*
> + * Ensure the device ID is right. We expect that VMM has
> + * transferred the device ID to host's from guest's.
> + */
I'm not sure what this remark means, but I expect you will need to
translate any devices IDs from virtual to physical.
>
> static int
> -riscv_iommu_get_dc_user(struct device *dev, struct iommu_hwpt_riscv_iommu *user_arg)
> +riscv_iommu_get_dc_user(struct device *dev, struct iommu_hwpt_riscv_iommu *user_arg,
> + struct riscv_iommu_domain *s1_domain)
> {
> struct iommu_fwspec *fwspec = dev_iommu_fwspec_get(dev);
> struct riscv_iommu_device *iommu = dev_to_iommu(dev);
> @@ -1663,6 +1743,8 @@ riscv_iommu_get_dc_user(struct device *dev, struct iommu_hwpt_riscv_iommu *user_
> riscv_iommu_get_dc(iommu, fwspec->ids[i]),
> sizeof(struct riscv_iommu_dc));
> info->dc_user.fsc = dc.fsc;
> + info->dc_user.ta = FIELD_PREP(RISCV_IOMMU_PC_TA_PSCID, s1_domain->pscid) |
> + RISCV_IOMMU_PC_TA_V;
> }
It is really weird that the s1 domain has any kind of id. What is the
PSCID? Is it analogous to VMID on ARM?
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists