[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <58169757-69f5-45fc-8657-82763c71803b@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 01:15:43 +0700
From: "Suthikulpanit, Suravee" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev, joro@...tes.org,
robin.murphy@....com, vasant.hegde@....com, kevin.tian@...el.com,
jon.grimm@....com, santosh.shukla@....com, pandoh@...gle.com,
kumaranand@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/amd: Modify set_dte_entry() to use 128-bit cmpxchg
operation
Hi Jason,
On 8/20/2024 12:09 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 04:18:39PM +0000, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>
>> +struct dte256 {
>
> [..]
>
> This would be alot better as just
>
> struct dte {
> union {
> u64 data[4];
> u128 data128[2];
> };
> };
>
> And don't make a new type. IIRC the cmpxchg likes to have alignment
> and the u128 provides that..
OK.
>> +static void update_dte256(struct amd_iommu *iommu, u16 devid, struct dte256 *new)
>> +{
>> + struct dev_table_entry *dev_table = get_dev_table(iommu);
>> + struct dte256 *ptr = (struct dte256 *)&dev_table[devid];
>> + struct dte256 old = {
>> + .qw_lo.data = ptr->qw_lo.data,
>> + .qw_hi.data = ptr->qw_hi.data,
>> + };
>> +
>> + /* Update qw_lo */
>> + if (!try_cmpxchg128(&ptr->qw_lo.data, &old.qw_lo.data, new->qw_lo.data))
>> + goto err_out;
>> +
>> + /* Update qw_hi */
>> + if (!try_cmpxchg128(&ptr->qw_hi.data, &old.qw_hi.data, new->qw_hi.data)) {
>> + /* Restore qw_lo */
>> + try_cmpxchg128(&ptr->qw_lo.data, &new->qw_lo.data, old.qw_lo.data);
>> + goto err_out;
>> + }
>
> I don't think this is going to work like this, the interrupt remapping
> code can asynchronously change the values (it is an existing race bug)
> and if it races that will cause these to fail too, and this doesn't
> handle that case at all.
>
> IMHO the simple solution would hold the spinlock and transfer the
> interrupt remapping fields then directly write them without a failable
> cmpxchg. Maybe you could also use a cmpxchg loop to transfer the interrupt
> remapping bits without a lock..
OK, I'll as synchronization when updating DTE.
> Can you assume cmpxchg 128 is available on all CPUs that have the
> iommu? I see google says some early AMD 64 bit CPUs don't have it? Do
> they have iommu's? I had wondered if the doc intended that some 128
> bit SSE/MMX store store would be used here??
>
> If cmpxchg128 is safe checking that cap and refusing to probe the
> iommu driver would be appropriate. Otherwise a 64 bit flow still has
> to work?
According to the AMD BIOS and Kernel Developer's Guide (BDKG) dated back
since family 10h Processor
(https://www.amd.com/content/dam/amd/en/documents/archived-tech-docs/programmer-references/31116.pdf),
which is the first introduction of AMD IOMMU, AMD processor always
support for CPUID Fn0000_0001_ECX[CMPXCHG16B]=1.
So, it should be safe to assume that cmpxchg128 is available with all
AMD processor w/ IOMMU.
> Finally, the order of programming the two 128s depends on what you are
> programming. The first 128 contains the valid bit so you shouldn't be
> writing the second 128 after, and vice versa. This will make
> undesirable races around Guest Paging Mode and eventually viommuen at
> least.
Ok, I'll program the higher 128-bit first.
> If you have to solve the 64 bit case too, then you really should use
> the programmer from SMMUv3. Everyone seems to need this logic and it
> should be generalized. I can help you do it.. I have a patch to make
> that logic use 128 bit stores too someplace.
>
> Otherwise you can possibly open code the 128 bit path with some more
> care to check the valid bits and set the order, plus the interrupt
> remapping locking.
I think the cmpxchg128 should still work and would be a simpler
solution. I am sending out v2 shortly.
Thanks,
Suravee
Powered by blists - more mailing lists