[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aUB0t4MSf624Wwmw@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 12:51:03 -0800
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@...gle.com>
CC: <jgg@...dia.com>, <will@...nel.org>, <robin.murphy@....com>,
<joro@...tes.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<skolothumtho@...dia.com>, <praan@...gle.com>, <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rc v3 1/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add ignored bits to fix STE
update sequence
Hi Mostafa,
On Sun, Dec 14, 2025 at 10:32:35PM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2025 at 06:45:16PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > @@ -1207,12 +1223,9 @@ void arm_smmu_write_entry(struct arm_smmu_entry_writer *writer, __le64 *entry,
> > entry_set(writer, entry, target, 0, 1);
> > } else {
> > /*
> > - * No inuse bit changed. Sanity check that all unused bits are 0
> > - * in the entry. The target was already sanity checked by
> > - * compute_qword_diff().
> > + * No inuse bit changed, though ignored bits may have changed.
> > */
> > - WARN_ON_ONCE(
> > - entry_set(writer, entry, target, 0, NUM_ENTRY_QWORDS));
> > + entry_set(writer, entry, target, 0, NUM_ENTRY_QWORDS);
>
> After this change, no other caller uses the entry_set() return value, so it
> can be changed to return void.
OK.
> > }
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT(arm_smmu_write_entry);
> > @@ -1543,6 +1556,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_ste_writer_sync_entry(struct arm_smmu_entry_writer *writer)
> > static const struct arm_smmu_entry_writer_ops arm_smmu_ste_writer_ops = {
> > .sync = arm_smmu_ste_writer_sync_entry,
> > .get_used = arm_smmu_get_ste_used,
> > + .get_ignored = arm_smmu_get_ste_ignored,
> > };
> >
>
> I have some mixed feelings about this, having get_used(), then get_ignored()
> with the same bits set seems confusing to me, specially the get_ignored()
> loops back to update cur_used, which is set from get_used()
>
> My initial though was just to remove this bit from get_used() + some changes
> to checks setting bits that are not used would be enough, and the semantics
> of get_used() can be something as:
> “Return bits used by the updated translation regime that MUST be observed
> atomically” and in that case we can ignore things as MEV as it doesn’t
> impact the translation.
>
> However, this approach makes it a bit explicit which bits are ignored, if we
> keep this logic, I think changing the name of get_ignored() might help, to
> something as "get_allowed_break()" or "get_update_safe()"?
I think "ignored" itself is brief and understandable.. Instead,
perhaps we can add a kdocs to make it clearer:
/**
* struct arm_smmu_entry_writer_ops - STE/CD entry writer operations
* @get_used: Output to @used the bits used by the hardware corresponding to the
* configurations bits set in a given @entry
* @get_ignored: Output to @ignored the bits that are listed in the "used" list
* but allowed to be ignored by arm_smmu_entry_qword_diff(). Each
* field (bits) must provide a reason to justify that the entries
* can be updated safely without breaking STE/CD configurations.
* @sync: Operation to synchronize the updated STE/CD entries in the memory
*/
struct arm_smmu_entry_writer_ops {
void (*get_used)(const __le64 *entry, __le64 *used);
void (*get_ignored)(__le64 *ignored);
void (*sync)(struct arm_smmu_entry_writer *writer);
};
?
Thanks
Nicolin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists