[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251219151434.GI31492@ziepe.ca>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 11:14:34 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
Cc: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Asahi Lina <lina+kernel@...hilina.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] io: add io_pgtable abstraction
On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 04:11:53PM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> There's actually a confusion between TLB invalidation and L1/L2 cache
> flush/invalidation. The things we can decide to flush/invalidate around
> map/unmap ops are L1/L2 caches. The TLB invalidate, we don't have
> direct control on: it happens as part of the LOCK+UNLOCK sequence, and
> no matter what you execute (map or unmap), you have to surround it with
> a LOCK/UNLOCK to provide support for atomic updates (GPU is blocked if
> anything accesses the locked range while an update is on-going).
That makes more sense, so these GPU drivers just flush the entire TLB
every time they change it - built into the UNLOCK operation?
Sounds slow, but is a reasonable explanation why they don't use the
callbacks.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists