iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Allocate vmid per vsmmu instead of s2_parent
Subsystems (2)
cover iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Allocate vmid per vsmmu instead of s2_parent
With a system having multiple SMMU physical instances, multiple vSMMUs can be allocated for a VM that deivces behind different SMMUs are assigned to. In such a use case, the IPA->PA mappings (i.e. the stage-2 I/O page table) can be shared across the vSMMU instances.
With a shareable S2 parent domain, it is more natural to store a vmid per vSMMU instance v.s. a shared S2 domain, since each physical SMMU instance maintains its own vmid bitmap.
Have a pair of patches getting the functions ready for the vmid migration. Decouple the vmid from S2 parent domains and move its allocation to vSMMU instances. Note that a regular S2 domain (!nest_parent) has to retain the s2_cfg and vmid for non-nesting use cases, if the SMMU HW doesn't support stage 1. Then, an S2 invalidation has to be iterated for all the vmids in the vSMMU list introduced in the S2 parent domain.
This is on Github:
https://github.com/nicolinc/iommufd/commits/smmuv3_vmid-v1
To test it with RMR:
https://github.com/nicolinc/iommufd/commits/smmuv3_vmid-v1-with-rmr
Pairing QEMU branch:
https://github.com/nicolinc/qemu/commits/wip/for_smmuv3_vmid-v1
Thanks
Nicolin
Nicolin Chen (4):
iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Pass in vmid to arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste() iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Share arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd_with_sync() with
vsmmu
iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Decouple vmid from S2 nest_parent domain iommu/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd: Allow a shared s2_parent to allocate vSMMU
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h | 14 ++++- .../arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c | 44 +++++++++++--- .../iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-test.c | 3 +- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 57 ++++++++++++++----- 4 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
base-commit: 7eb172143d5508b4da468ed59ee857c6e5e01da6
Signature · 1 line
2.43.0
PATCH 1/4 iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Pass in vmid to arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste()
An stage-2 STE requires a vmid that has been so far allocated per domain, so arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste() has been extracting the vmid from the S2 domain.
To share an S2 parent domain across vSMMUs in the same VM, a vmid will be no longer allocated for nor stored in the S2 domain, but per vSMMU, which means the arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste() can get a vmid either from an S2 domain (non nesting parent) or a vSMMU.
Allow to pass in vmid explicitly to arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste(), giving its callers a chance to pick the vmid between a domain or a vSMMU.
--- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h | 2 +- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c | 6 ++++-- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-test.c | 3 ++- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 6 +++--- 4 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h +1 -1
@@ -887,7 +887,7 @@ struct arm_smmu_entry_writer_ops {void arm_smmu_make_abort_ste (struct arm_smmu_ste *target);void arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste (struct arm_smmu_ste *target,struct arm_smmu_master *master, -struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain, +struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain,u16 vmid,bool ats_enabled);#if IS_ENABLED (CONFIG_KUNIT )
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c +4 -2
@@ -34,8 +34,9 @@ static void arm_smmu_make_nested_cd_table_ste( struct arm_smmu_ste *target, struct arm_smmu_master *master, struct arm_smmu_nested_domain *nested_domain, bool ats_enabled) { -arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste ( - target, master, nested_domain->vsmmu->s2_parent, ats_enabled); +arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste (target ,master , + nested_domain->vsmmu->s2_parent, + nested_domain->vsmmu->vmid, ats_enabled); target->data[0] = cpu_to_le64(STRTAB_STE_0_V | FIELD_PREP(STRTAB_STE_0_CFG,
@@ -76,6 +77,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_make_nested_domain_ste(case STRTAB_STE_0_CFG_BYPASS :arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste (target, master, nested_domain->vsmmu->s2_parent, + nested_domain->vsmmu->vmid, ats_enabled);break ;case STRTAB_STE_0_CFG_ABORT :
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-test.c +2 -1
@@ -316,7 +316,8 @@ static void arm_smmu_test_make_s2_ste(struct arm_smmu_ste *ste, io_pgtable.cfg.arm_lpae_s2_cfg.vtcr.sl =3 ; io_pgtable.cfg.arm_lpae_s2_cfg.vtcr.tsz =4 ; -arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste (ste, &master, &smmu_domain, ats_enabled); +arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste (ste, &master, &smmu_domain, + smmu_domain.s2_cfg.vmid, ats_enabled); }static void arm_smmu_v3_write_ste_test_s2_to_abort (struct kunit *test)
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +3 -3
@@ -1656,10 +1656,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT(arm_smmu_make_cdtable_ste);void arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste (struct arm_smmu_ste *target,struct arm_smmu_master *master, -struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain, +struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain,u16 vmid,bool ats_enabled) { -struct arm_smmu_s2_cfg *s2_cfg = &smmu_domain->s2_cfg;const struct io_pgtable_cfg *pgtbl_cfg = &io_pgtable_ops_to_pgtable (smmu_domain->pgtbl_ops)->cfg; typeof(&pgtbl_cfg->arm_lpae_s2_cfg.vtcr) vtcr =
@@ -1690,7 +1689,7 @@ void arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste(struct arm_smmu_ste *target,FIELD_PREP (STRTAB_STE_2_VTCR_S2TG , vtcr->tg) |FIELD_PREP (STRTAB_STE_2_VTCR_S2PS , vtcr->ps); target->data[2 ] =cpu_to_le64 ( -FIELD_PREP (STRTAB_STE_2_S2VMID , s2_cfg->vmid) | +FIELD_PREP (STRTAB_STE_2_S2VMID , vmid) |FIELD_PREP (STRTAB_STE_2_VTCR , vtcr_val) |STRTAB_STE_2_S2AA64 | #ifdef __BIG_ENDIAN
@@ -2969,6 +2968,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_attach_dev(struct iommu_domain *domain, struct device *dev) }case ARM_SMMU_DOMAIN_S2 :arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste (&target, master, smmu_domain, + smmu_domain->s2_cfg.vmid, state.ats_enabled);arm_smmu_install_ste_for_dev (master, &target);arm_smmu_clear_cd (master,IOMMU_NO_PASID );
Signature · 1 line
2.43.0
RE: [PATCH v1 1/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Pass in vmid to arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste()
Hi Nicolin,
Thanks for sending out this series. This might as well help me to rework my pinned KVM VMID series here,
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/[email protected]/
Quoted 40 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicolin Chen <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 5:04 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <[email protected]>
Subject: [PATCH v1 1/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Pass in vmid toarm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste()An stage-2 STE requires a vmid that has been so far allocated per domain, so
arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste()has been extracting the vmid from the S2
domain.To share an S2 parent domain across vSMMUs in the same VM, a vmid will be
no longer allocated for nor stored in the S2 domain, but per vSMMU, which means thearm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste()can get a vmid either from an S2
domain (non nesting parent) or a vSMMU.Allow to pass in vmid explicitly to
arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste(), giving
its callers a chance to pick the vmid between a domain or a vSMMU.Signed-off-by Nicolin Chen <[email protected]>--- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h | 2 +- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c | 6 ++++-- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-test.c | 3 ++- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 6 +++--- 4 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h +0
-0
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h struct arm_smmu_entry_writer_ops { · line 892
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h +1
-1@@ -887,7 +887,7 @@ struct arm_smmu_entry_writer_ops {void arm_smmu_make_abort_ste (struct arm_smmu_ste *target);void arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste (struct arm_smmu_ste *target,struct arm_smmu_master *master, -struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain, +struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain,u16 vmid,bool ats_enabled);
Now that vmid is an input, do we need some kind of validation here as at least vmid = 0 is reserved I guess for bypass STEs.
Thanks,
Shameer
Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Pass in vmid to arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste()
Quoted 8 lines · Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h +0
-0@@ -887,7 +887,7 @@ struct arm_smmu_entry_writer_ops {void arm_smmu_make_abort_ste (struct arm_smmu_ste *target); void arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste(struct arm_smmu_ste *target,
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h struct arm_smmu_entry_writer_ops { · line 891
Quoted 5 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h +1
-1struct arm_smmu_master *master, - struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain, + struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain, u16 vmid, bool ats_enabled);Now that vmid is an input, do we need some kind of validation here as at least vmid = 0 is reserved I guess for bypass STEs.
Perhaps it should do a WARN_ON_ONCE(!vmid), as it doesn't make sense for a caller to make an S2-bypass STE with this function.
Thanks
Nicolin
Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Pass in vmid to arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste()
Quoted 18 lines · Nicolin Chen
Quoted 8 lines · Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h +0
-0@@ -887,7 +887,7 @@ struct arm_smmu_entry_writer_ops {void arm_smmu_make_abort_ste (struct arm_smmu_ste *target); void arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste(struct arm_smmu_ste *target,Quoted 8 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h struct arm_smmu_entry_writer_ops { · line 891
Quoted 5 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h +1
-1struct arm_smmu_master *master, - struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain, + struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain, u16 vmid, bool ats_enabled);Now that vmid is an input, do we need some kind of validation here as at least vmid = 0 is reserved I guess for bypass STEs.
Quoted 3 lines
Perhaps it should do a
WARN_ON_ONCE(!vmid), as it doesn't make sense for a caller to make an S2-bypass STE with this function.
+1, a warning should suffice as the caller isn't expected to call this with vmid = 0. For the s2 bypass case, we already set vmid field to 0 in make_cdtable_ste for clients who *really* want the vmid = 0.
Quoted 3 lines
Thanks
Nicolin
Thanks
Praan
Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Pass in vmid to arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste()
In reply to Nicolin ChenQuoted 12 lines · Nicolin Chen
An stage-2 STE requires a vmid that has been so far allocated per domain, so
arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste()has been extracting the vmid from the S2 domain.To share an S2 parent domain across vSMMUs in the same VM, a vmid will be no longer allocated for nor stored in the S2 domain, but per vSMMU, which means the
arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste()can get a vmid either from an S2 domain (non nesting parent) or a vSMMU.Allow to pass in vmid explicitly to
arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste(), giving its callers a chance to pick the vmid between a domain or a vSMMU.
Quoted 7 lines
Signed-off-by Nicolin Chen <[email protected]>--- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h | 2 +- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c | 6 ++++-- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-test.c | 3 ++- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 6 +++--- 4 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
Jason
Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Pass in vmid to arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste()
In reply to Nicolin ChenQuoted 9 lines · Nicolin Chen
An stage-2 STE requires a vmid that has been so far allocated per domain, so
arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste()has been extracting the vmid from the S2 domain.To share an S2 parent domain across vSMMUs in the same VM, a vmid will be no longer allocated for nor stored in the S2 domain, but per vSMMU, which means the
arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste()can get a vmid either from an S2 domain (non nesting parent) or a vSMMU.
Quoted 4 lines
Allow to pass in vmid explicitly to
arm_smmu_make_s2_domain_ste(), giving its callers a chance to pick the vmid between a domain or a vSMMU.Signed-off-by Nicolin Chen <[email protected]>
Quoted 7 lines
--- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h | 2 +- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c | 6 ++++-- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-test.c | 3 ++- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 6 +++--- 4 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
Thanks
PATCH 2/4 iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Share arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd_with_sync() with vsmmu
In reply to Nicolin ChenAllow arm-smmu-v3-iommufd to call it for S2 cache invalidations.
--- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h | 2 ++ drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h +2 -0
@@ -984,6 +984,8 @@ void arm_smmu_install_ste_for_dev(struct arm_smmu_master *master,int arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist (struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,struct arm_smmu_cmdq *cmdq,u64 *cmds,int n,bool sync); +int arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd_with_sync (struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, +struct arm_smmu_cmdq_ent *ent);#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_SMMU_V3_SVA bool arm_smmu_sva_supported (struct arm_smmu_device *smmu);
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +2 -2
@@ -929,8 +929,8 @@ static int arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,return __arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd (smmu, ent, false); } -static int arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd_with_sync (struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, -struct arm_smmu_cmdq_ent *ent) +int arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd_with_sync (struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, +struct arm_smmu_cmdq_ent *ent) {return __arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd (smmu, ent, true); }
Signature · 1 line
2.43.0
Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Share arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd_with_sync() with vsmmu
Quoted 3 lines · Nicolin Chen
Allow arm-smmu-v3-iommufd to call it for S2 cache invalidations.
Signed-off-by Nicolin Chen <[email protected]>
Thanks
Quoted 37 lines
--- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h | 2 ++ drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h +2
-0@@ -984,6 +984,8 @@ void arm_smmu_install_ste_for_dev(struct arm_smmu_master *master,int arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist (struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,struct arm_smmu_cmdq *cmdq,u64 *cmds,int n,bool sync); +int arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd_with_sync (struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, +struct arm_smmu_cmdq_ent *ent);#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_SMMU_V3_SVA bool arm_smmu_sva_supported (struct arm_smmu_device *smmu);drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +2
-2@@ -929,8 +929,8 @@ static int arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,return __arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd (smmu, ent, false); } -static int arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd_with_sync (struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, -struct arm_smmu_cmdq_ent *ent) +int arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd_with_sync (struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, +struct arm_smmu_cmdq_ent *ent) {return __arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd (smmu, ent, true); }Signature · 1 line
2.43.0
PATCH 3/4 iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Decouple vmid from S2 nest_parent domain
In reply to Nicolin ChenAn S2 nest_parent domain can be shared across vSMMUs in the same VM, since the S2 domain is basically the IPA mappings for the entire RAM of the VM.
Meanwhile, each vSMMU can have its own VMID, so the VMID allocation should be done per vSMMU instance v.s. per S2 nest_parent domain.
However, an S2 domain can be also allocated when a physical SMMU instance doesn't support S1. So, the structure has to retain the s2_cfg and vmid.
Allocate a vmid for a vSMMU instance in arm_vsmmu_alloc() and add a proper arm_vsmmu_destroy() to clean it up.
Add a per-domain "vsmmus" list pairing with a spinlock, maintaining a list on the S2 parent domain, to iterate S2 invalidations over the vmids across the vSMMU instances created for the same VM.
--- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h | 10 +++- .../arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c | 35 ++++++++++++-- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 47 +++++++++++++++---- 3 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h +8 -2
@@ -849,8 +849,12 @@ struct arm_smmu_domain {enum arm_smmu_domain_stage stage;union { -struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc cd; -struct arm_smmu_s2_cfg s2_cfg; +struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc cd;/* S1 */ +struct arm_smmu_s2_cfg s2_cfg;/* S2 && !nest_parent */ +struct {/* S2 && nest_parent */ +struct list_head list; +spinlock_t lock; + } vsmmus; };struct iommu_domain domain;
@@ -1049,6 +1053,8 @@ struct arm_vsmmu {struct arm_smmu_device *smmu;struct arm_smmu_domain *s2_parent;u16 vmid; + +struct list_head vsmmus_elm;/* arm_smmu_domain::vsmmus::list */ };#if IS_ENABLED (CONFIG_ARM_SMMU_V3_IOMMUFD )
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c +32 -3
@@ -30,6 +30,23 @@ void *arm_smmu_hw_info(struct device *dev, u32 *length, u32 *type)return info; } +static void arm_vsmmu_destroy (struct iommufd_viommu *viommu) +{ + struct arm_vsmmu *vsmmu = container_of(viommu, struct arm_vsmmu, core); +struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = vsmmu->smmu; +struct arm_smmu_cmdq_ent cmd = { + .opcode =CMDQ_OP_TLBI_S12_VMALL , + .tlbi.vmid = vsmmu->vmid, + }; +unsigned long flags; + +spin_lock_irqsave (&vsmmu->s2_parent->vsmmus.lock, flags); +list_del (&vsmmu->vsmmus_elm); +spin_unlock_irqrestore (&vsmmu->s2_parent->vsmmus.lock, flags); +arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd_with_sync (smmu, &cmd); +ida_free (&smmu->vmid_map, vsmmu->vmid); +} +static void arm_smmu_make_nested_cd_table_ste (struct arm_smmu_ste *target,struct arm_smmu_master *master,struct arm_smmu_nested_domain *nested_domain,bool ats_enabled)
@@ -337,6 +354,7 @@ static int arm_vsmmu_cache_invalidate(struct iommufd_viommu *viommu, }static const struct iommufd_viommu_ops arm_vsmmu_ops = { + .destroy = arm_vsmmu_destroy, .alloc_domain_nested = arm_vsmmu_alloc_domain_nested, .cache_invalidate = arm_vsmmu_cache_invalidate, };
@@ -351,6 +369,8 @@ struct iommufd_viommu *arm_vsmmu_alloc(struct device *dev,struct arm_smmu_master *master =dev_iommu_priv_get (dev);struct arm_smmu_domain *s2_parent =to_smmu_domain (parent);struct arm_vsmmu *vsmmu; +unsigned long flags; +int vmid;if (viommu_type !=IOMMU_VIOMMU_TYPE_ARM_SMMUV3 )return ERR_PTR (-EOPNOTSUPP );
@@ -381,15 +401,24 @@ struct iommufd_viommu *arm_vsmmu_alloc(struct device *dev, !(smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_S2FWB))return ERR_PTR (-EOPNOTSUPP ); + vmid =ida_alloc_range (&smmu->vmid_map,1 , (1 << smmu->vmid_bits) -1 , +GFP_KERNEL ); +if (vmid <0 ) +return ERR_PTR (vmid); + vsmmu = iommufd_viommu_alloc(ictx, struct arm_vsmmu, core, &arm_vsmmu_ops); -if (IS_ERR (vsmmu)) +if (IS_ERR (vsmmu)) { +ida_free (&smmu->vmid_map, vmid);return ERR_CAST (vsmmu); + } vsmmu->smmu = smmu; + vsmmu->vmid = (u16 )vmid; vsmmu->s2_parent = s2_parent; -/* FIXME Move VMID allocation from the S2 domain allocation to here */ - vsmmu->vmid = s2_parent->s2_cfg.vmid; +spin_lock_irqsave (&s2_parent->vsmmus.lock, flags); +list_add_tail (&vsmmu->vsmmus_elm, &s2_parent->vsmmus.list); +spin_unlock_irqrestore (&s2_parent->vsmmus.lock, flags);return &vsmmu->core; }
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +39 -8
95 lines not on this page · raw message
Signature · 1 line
2.43.0
Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Decouple vmid from S2 nest_parent domain
Quoted 12 lines · Nicolin Chen
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +4
-1@@ -2249,10 +2249,22 @@ static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_context(void *cookie)*/ if (smmu_domain->stage ==ARM_SMMU_DOMAIN_S1 ) {arm_smmu_tlb_inv_asid (smmu, smmu_domain->cd.asid); - }else { + }else if (!smmu_domain->nest_parent) { cmd.opcode =CMDQ_OP_TLBI_S12_VMALL ; cmd.tlbi.vmid = smmu_domain->s2_cfg.vmid;arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd_with_sync (smmu, &cmd); + }else { +struct arm_vsmmu *vsmmu, *next; +unsigned long flags;
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_context(void *cookie) · line 2268
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +9
-0+ + cmd.opcode =CMDQ_OP_TLBI_S12_VMALL ; +spin_lock_irqsave (&smmu_domain->vsmmus.lock, flags); +list_for_each_entry_safe (vsmmu, next, &smmu_domain->vsmmus.list, + vsmmus_elm) { + cmd.tlbi.vmid = vsmmu->vmid; +arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd_with_sync (smmu, &cmd); + } +spin_unlock_irqrestore (&smmu_domain->vsmmus.lock, flags); }
I see.. So this just makes a 3rd classification of invalidation protocol that uses a spinlock and linked list
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_context(void *cookie) · line 2269
Quoted 1 line
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +0
-0arm_smmu_atc_inv_domain (smmu_domain,0 ,0 );
This is no good, arm_smmu_atc_inv_domain() is invalidating against the instance that created the domain.
IMHO if you do this you should set domain->iommu = NULL to indicate that the iommu is non-valid in this mode to catch issues.
Jason
Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Decouple vmid from S2 nest_parent domain
Quoted 12 lines · Jason Gunthorpe
Quoted 11 lines · Nicolin Chen
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +3
-1@@ -2249,10 +2249,22 @@ static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_context(void *cookie)*/ if (smmu_domain->stage ==ARM_SMMU_DOMAIN_S1 ) {arm_smmu_tlb_inv_asid (smmu, smmu_domain->cd.asid); - }else { + }else if (!smmu_domain->nest_parent) { cmd.opcode =CMDQ_OP_TLBI_S12_VMALL ; cmd.tlbi.vmid = smmu_domain->s2_cfg.vmid;arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd_with_sync (smmu, &cmd); + }else { +struct arm_vsmmu *vsmmu, *next;
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_context(void *cookie) · line 2265
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +8
-0+unsigned long flags; + + cmd.opcode =CMDQ_OP_TLBI_S12_VMALL ; +spin_lock_irqsave (&smmu_domain->vsmmus.lock, flags); +list_for_each_entry_safe (vsmmu, next, &smmu_domain->vsmmus.list, + vsmmus_elm) { + cmd.tlbi.vmid = vsmmu->vmid; +arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd_with_sync (smmu, &cmd);
Just noticed that here should be vsmmu->smmu.
Quoted 11 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_context(void *cookie) · line 2268
Quoted 3 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +2
-0+ } +spin_unlock_irqrestore (&smmu_domain->vsmmus.lock, flags); }I see.. So this just makes a 3rd classification of invalidation protocol that uses a spinlock and linked list
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_context(void *cookie) · line 2269
Quoted 1 line
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +0
-0arm_smmu_atc_inv_domain (smmu_domain,0 ,0 );This is no good,
arm_smmu_atc_inv_domain()is invalidating against the instance that created the domain.
Oh right... we might need an arm_smmu_atc_inv_all() that takes an smmu pointer. This might have some performance downgrade as you worried about though.
Quoted 2 lines
IMHO if you do this you should set
domain->iommu= NULL to indicate that the iommu is non-valid in this mode to catch issues.
You mean smmu_domain->smmu pointer right?
Thanks
Nicolin
Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Decouple vmid from S2 nest_parent domain
In reply to Nicolin ChenQuoted 97 lines · Nicolin Chen
An S2
nest_parentdomain can be shared across vSMMUs in the same VM, since the S2 domain is basically the IPA mappings for the entire RAM of the VM.Meanwhile, each vSMMU can have its own VMID, so the VMID allocation should be done per vSMMU instance v.s. per S2
nest_parentdomain.However, an S2 domain can be also allocated when a physical SMMU instance doesn't support S1. So, the structure has to retain the
s2_cfgand vmid.Allocate a vmid for a vSMMU instance in
arm_vsmmu_alloc()and add a properarm_vsmmu_destroy()to clean it up.Add a per-domain "vsmmus" list pairing with a spinlock, maintaining a list on the S2 parent domain, to iterate S2 invalidations over the vmids across the vSMMU instances created for the same VM.
Signed-off-by Nicolin Chen <[email protected]>--- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h | 10 +++- .../arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c | 35 ++++++++++++-- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 47 +++++++++++++++---- 3 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h +8
-2@@ -849,8 +849,12 @@ struct arm_smmu_domain {enum arm_smmu_domain_stage stage;union { -struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc cd; -struct arm_smmu_s2_cfg s2_cfg; +struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc cd;/* S1 */ +struct arm_smmu_s2_cfg s2_cfg;/* S2 && !nest_parent */ +struct {/* S2 && nest_parent */ +struct list_head list; +spinlock_t lock; + } vsmmus; };struct iommu_domain domain;@@ -1049,6 +1053,8 @@ struct arm_vsmmu {struct arm_smmu_device *smmu;struct arm_smmu_domain *s2_parent;u16 vmid; + +struct list_head vsmmus_elm;/* arm_smmu_domain::vsmmus::list */ };#if IS_ENABLED (CONFIG_ARM_SMMU_V3_IOMMUFD )drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c +20
-0@@ -30,6 +30,23 @@ void *arm_smmu_hw_info(struct device *dev, u32 *length, u32 *type)return info; } +static void arm_vsmmu_destroy (struct iommufd_viommu *viommu) +{ + struct arm_vsmmu *vsmmu = container_of(viommu, struct arm_vsmmu, core); +struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = vsmmu->smmu; +struct arm_smmu_cmdq_ent cmd = { + .opcode =CMDQ_OP_TLBI_S12_VMALL , + .tlbi.vmid = vsmmu->vmid, + }; +unsigned long flags; + +spin_lock_irqsave (&vsmmu->s2_parent->vsmmus.lock, flags); +list_del (&vsmmu->vsmmus_elm); +spin_unlock_irqrestore (&vsmmu->s2_parent->vsmmus.lock, flags); +arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd_with_sync (smmu, &cmd); +ida_free (&smmu->vmid_map, vsmmu->vmid); +} +static void arm_smmu_make_nested_cd_table_ste (struct arm_smmu_ste *target,struct arm_smmu_master *master,struct arm_smmu_nested_domain *nested_domain,bool ats_enabled)@@ -337,6 +354,7 @@ static int arm_vsmmu_cache_invalidate(struct iommufd_viommu *viommu, }static const struct iommufd_viommu_ops arm_vsmmu_ops = { + .destroy = arm_vsmmu_destroy, .alloc_domain_nested = arm_vsmmu_alloc_domain_nested, .cache_invalidate = arm_vsmmu_cache_invalidate, };@@ -351,6 +369,8 @@ struct iommufd_viommu *arm_vsmmu_alloc(struct device *dev,struct arm_smmu_master *master =dev_iommu_priv_get (dev);struct arm_smmu_domain *s2_parent =to_smmu_domain (parent);struct arm_vsmmu *vsmmu; +unsigned long flags; +int vmid;if (viommu_type !=IOMMU_VIOMMU_TYPE_ARM_SMMUV3 )return ERR_PTR (-EOPNOTSUPP );
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c struct iommufd_viommu *arm_vsmmu_alloc(struct device *dev, · line 408
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c +5
-0@@ -381,15 +401,24 @@ struct iommufd_viommu *arm_vsmmu_alloc(struct device *dev, !(smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_S2FWB))return ERR_PTR (-EOPNOTSUPP ); + vmid =ida_alloc_range (&smmu->vmid_map,1 , (1 << smmu->vmid_bits) -1 , +GFP_KERNEL ); +if (vmid <0 ) +return ERR_PTR (vmid); +
Probably a basic question, I hope we'll have one vSMMU per VM? Even if that's not the case then the VMM should take care of invalidating contexts of all associated vSMMUs anyway? (Just thinking if we should allocate a VMID per VM or per vSMMU)
Nit: Does it makes sense to create a helper like arm_smmu_vmid_alloc and call it here and finalise_s2?
Quoted 32 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c +7
-3vsmmu = iommufd_viommu_alloc(ictx, struct arm_vsmmu, core, &arm_vsmmu_ops); -if (IS_ERR (vsmmu)) +if (IS_ERR (vsmmu)) { +ida_free (&smmu->vmid_map, vmid);return ERR_CAST (vsmmu); + } vsmmu->smmu = smmu; + vsmmu->vmid = (u16 )vmid; vsmmu->s2_parent = s2_parent; -/* FIXME Move VMID allocation from the S2 domain allocation to here */ - vsmmu->vmid = s2_parent->s2_cfg.vmid; +spin_lock_irqsave (&s2_parent->vsmmus.lock, flags); +list_add_tail (&vsmmu->vsmmus_elm, &s2_parent->vsmmus.list); +spin_unlock_irqrestore (&s2_parent->vsmmus.lock, flags);return &vsmmu->core; }drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +1
-1@@ -2249,10 +2249,22 @@ static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_context(void *cookie)*/ if (smmu_domain->stage ==ARM_SMMU_DOMAIN_S1 ) {arm_smmu_tlb_inv_asid (smmu, smmu_domain->cd.asid); - }else { + }else if (!smmu_domain->nest_parent) { cmd.opcode =CMDQ_OP_TLBI_S12_VMALL ; cmd.tlbi.vmid = smmu_domain->s2_cfg.vmid;arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd_with_sync (smmu, &cmd);
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_context(void *cookie) · line 2265
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +10
-0+ }else { +struct arm_vsmmu *vsmmu, *next; +unsigned long flags; + + cmd.opcode =CMDQ_OP_TLBI_S12_VMALL ; +spin_lock_irqsave (&smmu_domain->vsmmus.lock, flags); +list_for_each_entry_safe (vsmmu, next, &smmu_domain->vsmmus.list, + vsmmus_elm) { + cmd.tlbi.vmid = vsmmu->vmid; +arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd_with_sync (smmu, &cmd);
Shouldn't this be vsmmu->smmu?
Quoted 14 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +5
-1+ } +spin_unlock_irqrestore (&smmu_domain->vsmmus.lock, flags); }arm_smmu_atc_inv_domain (smmu_domain,0 ,0 ); }@@ -2342,19 +2354,33 @@ static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain(unsigned long iova, size_t size, cmd.opcode = smmu_domain->smmu->features &ARM_SMMU_FEAT_E2H ?CMDQ_OP_TLBI_EL2_VA :CMDQ_OP_TLBI_NH_VA ; cmd.tlbi.asid = smmu_domain->cd.asid; - }else { +__arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range (&cmd, iova, size, granule, + smmu_domain); + }else if (!smmu_domain->nest_parent) { cmd.opcode =CMDQ_OP_TLBI_S2_IPA ;
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain(unsigned long iova, size_t size, · line 2351
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +5
-3cmd.tlbi.vmid = smmu_domain->s2_cfg.vmid; - } -__arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range (&cmd, iova, size, granule, smmu_domain); +__arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range (&cmd, iova, size, granule, + smmu_domain); + }else { +struct arm_vsmmu *vsmmu, *next; +unsigned long flags; -if (smmu_domain->nest_parent) {
Minor Nit: IMO, an explicit like this clarifies it better. I think we can keep this add gotos for the __arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range calls above? (Like the arm_smmu_domain_finalise_s2 changes below).
Quoted 29 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +11
-1/* * When the S2 domain changes all the nested S1 ASIDs have to be * flushed too. */ cmd.opcode =CMDQ_OP_TLBI_NH_ALL ;arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd_with_sync (smmu_domain->smmu, &cmd); + + cmd.opcode =CMDQ_OP_TLBI_S2_IPA ; +spin_lock_irqsave (&smmu_domain->vsmmus.lock, flags); +list_for_each_entry_safe (vsmmu, next, &smmu_domain->vsmmus.list, + vsmmus_elm) { + cmd.tlbi.vmid = vsmmu->vmid; +__arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range (&cmd, iova, size, granule, + smmu_domain); + } +spin_unlock_irqrestore (&smmu_domain->vsmmus.lock, flags); }/* @@ -2477,7 +2503,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_domain_free_paging(struct iommu_domain *domain)mutex_lock (&arm_smmu_asid_lock);xa_erase (&arm_smmu_asid_xa, smmu_domain->cd.asid);mutex_unlock (&arm_smmu_asid_lock); - }else { + }else if (!smmu_domain->nest_parent) {struct arm_smmu_s2_cfg *cfg = &smmu_domain->s2_cfg;if (cfg->vmid)ida_free (&smmu->vmid_map, cfg->vmid);
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c static int arm_smmu_domain_finalise_s2(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, · line 2509
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +0
-1@@ -2506,7 +2532,10 @@ static int arm_smmu_domain_finalise_s2(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain) {int vmid; -struct arm_smmu_s2_cfg *cfg = &smmu_domain->s2_cfg;
Is this really required? I see we're still doing the same thing for the nest_parent == false case.. we'll anyway return without doing much if (smmu_domain->nest_parent)
Quoted 18 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +5
-1+ +/* nest_parent stores vmid in vSMMU instead of a shared S2 domain */ +if (smmu_domain->nest_parent) +return 0 ;/* Reserve VMID 0 for stage-2 bypass STEs */ vmid = ida_alloc_range(&smmu->vmid_map, 1, (1 << smmu->vmid_bits) - 1,@@ -2514,7 +2543,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_domain_finalise_s2(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,if (vmid <0 )return vmid; - cfg->vmid = (u16 )vmid; + smmu_domain->s2_cfg.vmid = (u16 )vmid;return 0 ; }
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c arm_smmu_domain_alloc_paging_flags(struct device *dev, u32 flags, · line 3269
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +2
-0@@ -3233,6 +3262,8 @@ arm_smmu_domain_alloc_paging_flags(struct device *dev, u32 flags, } smmu_domain->stage =ARM_SMMU_DOMAIN_S2 ; smmu_domain->nest_parent = true; +INIT_LIST_HEAD (&smmu_domain->vsmmus.list); +spin_lock_init (&smmu_domain->vsmmus.lock);break ;case IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_DIRTY_TRACKING :case IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_DIRTY_TRACKING |IOMMU_HWPT_ALLOC_PASID :
Thanks,
Praan
Quoted 3 lines
2.43.0
Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Decouple vmid from S2 nest_parent domain
Quoted 11 lines · Pranjal Shrivastava
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c struct iommufd_viommu *arm_vsmmu_alloc(struct device *dev, · line 408
Quoted 9 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c +5
-0@@ -381,15 +401,24 @@ struct iommufd_viommu *arm_vsmmu_alloc(struct device *dev, !(smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_S2FWB))return ERR_PTR (-EOPNOTSUPP ); + vmid =ida_alloc_range (&smmu->vmid_map,1 , (1 << smmu->vmid_bits) -1 , +GFP_KERNEL ); +if (vmid <0 ) +return ERR_PTR (vmid); +Probably a basic question, I hope we'll have one vSMMU per VM?
A VIOMMU is tied to the physical SMMU, it cannot be shared across physical SMMU, so this is the right sort of way to get the ID
Quoted 3 lines
Even if that's not the case then the VMM should take care of invalidating contexts of all associated vSMMUs anyway? (Just thinking if we should allocate a VMID per VM or per vSMMU)
If the VMM wants to present a single vSMMU to the VM then the VMM needs to replicate invalidations as required to all the physical VIOMMU objects. This will prevent using the HW accelerated invalidation paths, so I expect that the VMM will have one vSMM per physical.
Quoted 2 lines
Nit: Does it makes sense to create a helper like
arm_smmu_vmid_allocand call it here andfinalise_s2?
Maybe so
Jason
Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Decouple vmid from S2 nest_parent domain
Quoted 20 lines · Jason Gunthorpe
Quoted 11 lines · Pranjal Shrivastava
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c struct iommufd_viommu *arm_vsmmu_alloc(struct device *dev, · line 408
Quoted 9 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c +5
-0@@ -381,15 +401,24 @@ struct iommufd_viommu *arm_vsmmu_alloc(struct device *dev, !(smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_S2FWB))return ERR_PTR (-EOPNOTSUPP ); + vmid =ida_alloc_range (&smmu->vmid_map,1 , (1 << smmu->vmid_bits) -1 , +GFP_KERNEL ); +if (vmid <0 ) +return ERR_PTR (vmid); +Probably a basic question, I hope we'll have one vSMMU per VM?
A VIOMMU is tied to the physical SMMU, it cannot be shared across physical SMMU, so this is the right sort of way to get the ID
Quoted 3 lines
Even if that's not the case then the VMM should take care of invalidating contexts of all associated vSMMUs anyway? (Just thinking if we should allocate a VMID per VM or per vSMMU)
Quoted 6 lines
If the VMM wants to present a single vSMMU to the VM then the VMM needs to replicate invalidations as required to all the physical VIOMMU objects. This will prevent using the HW accelerated invalidation paths, so I expect that the VMM will have one vSMM per physical.
Makes sense. Thanks!
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Nit: Does it makes sense to create a helper like
arm_smmu_vmid_allocand call it here andfinalise_s2?Maybe so
I recently saw Shameer's patch [1] using a different vmid allocation scheme, so I guess it's okay if we don't share this function..
Thanks,
Praan
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/[email protected]/
Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Decouple vmid from S2 nest_parent domain
In reply to Pranjal ShrivastavaQuoted 14 lines · Pranjal Shrivastava
Quoted 13 lines · Nicolin Chen
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +5
-1@@ -2249,10 +2249,22 @@ static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_context(void *cookie)*/ if (smmu_domain->stage ==ARM_SMMU_DOMAIN_S1 ) {arm_smmu_tlb_inv_asid (smmu, smmu_domain->cd.asid); - }else { + }else if (!smmu_domain->nest_parent) { cmd.opcode =CMDQ_OP_TLBI_S12_VMALL ; cmd.tlbi.vmid = smmu_domain->s2_cfg.vmid;arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd_with_sync (smmu, &cmd); + }else { +struct arm_vsmmu *vsmmu, *next; +unsigned long flags; +
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_context(void *cookie) · line 2265
Quoted 6 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +6
-0+ cmd.opcode =CMDQ_OP_TLBI_S12_VMALL ; +spin_lock_irqsave (&smmu_domain->vsmmus.lock, flags); +list_for_each_entry_safe (vsmmu, next, &smmu_domain->vsmmus.list, + vsmmus_elm) { + cmd.tlbi.vmid = vsmmu->vmid; +arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmd_with_sync (smmu, &cmd);Shouldn't this be
vsmmu->smmu?
Yes. I had fixed that locally after I sent this..
Quoted 18 lines
Quoted 18 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +8
-3@@ -2342,19 +2354,33 @@ static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain(unsigned long iova, size_t size, cmd.opcode = smmu_domain->smmu->features &ARM_SMMU_FEAT_E2H ?CMDQ_OP_TLBI_EL2_VA :CMDQ_OP_TLBI_NH_VA ; cmd.tlbi.asid = smmu_domain->cd.asid; - }else { +__arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range (&cmd, iova, size, granule, + smmu_domain); + }else if (!smmu_domain->nest_parent) { cmd.opcode =CMDQ_OP_TLBI_S2_IPA ; cmd.tlbi.vmid = smmu_domain->s2_cfg.vmid; - } -__arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range (&cmd, iova, size, granule, smmu_domain); +__arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range (&cmd, iova, size, granule, + smmu_domain); + }else { +struct arm_vsmmu *vsmmu, *next; +unsigned long flags;
Quoted 5 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain(unsigned long iova, size_t size, · line 2351
Quoted 1 line
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +0
-1-if (smmu_domain->nest_parent) {Minor Nit: IMO, an explicit like this clarifies it better. I think we can keep this add gotos for the
__arm_smmu_tlb_inv_rangecalls above? (Like thearm_smmu_domain_finalise_s2changes below).
I've reworked this part. It looks like this now:
if (smmu_domain->nest_parent) {
return arm_smmu_s2_parent_tlb_inv_range(smmu_domain, iova, size,
granule, leaf);
}
if (smmu_domain->stage == ARM_SMMU_DOMAIN_S1) {
cmd.opcode = smmu_domain->smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_E2H ?
CMDQ_OP_TLBI_EL2_VA : CMDQ_OP_TLBI_NH_VA;
cmd.tlbi.asid = smmu_domain->cd.asid;
} else {
cmd.opcode = CMDQ_OP_TLBI_S2_IPA;
cmd.tlbi.vmid = smmu_domain->s2_cfg.vmid;
}
__arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range(smmu_domain->smmu, &cmd, iova, size, granule,
&smmu_domain->domain);Quoted 9 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c static int arm_smmu_domain_finalise_s2(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, · line 2509
Quoted 5 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +0
-1@@ -2506,7 +2532,10 @@ static int arm_smmu_domain_finalise_s2(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain) {int vmid; -struct arm_smmu_s2_cfg *cfg = &smmu_domain->s2_cfg;Is this really required? I see we're still doing the same thing for the
nest_parent== false case.. we'll anyway return without doing much if (smmu_domain->nest_parent)
It's clearer and safer to reference S2_cfg after the "if" below.
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c static int arm_smmu_domain_finalise_s2(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, · line 2538
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c +4
-0+ +/* nest_parent stores vmid in vSMMU instead of a shared S2 domain */ +if (smmu_domain->nest_parent) +return 0 ;
Thanks
Nicolin
PATCH 4/4 iommu/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd: Allow a shared s2_parent to allocate vSMMU
In reply to Nicolin ChenNow, vmids are stored in vSMMU objects. So all vSMMUs assigned to the same VM can share a s2_parent domain. This means a vIOMMU allocation per device behind one SMMU can be given with a s2_parent domain that's allocated per another device behind another SMMU, i.e. s2_parent->smmu != master->smmu.
Remove the validation line to allow this use case.
--- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c +0 -3
@@ -378,9 +378,6 @@ struct iommufd_viommu *arm_vsmmu_alloc(struct device *dev,if (!(smmu->features &ARM_SMMU_FEAT_NESTING ))return ERR_PTR (-EOPNOTSUPP ); -if (s2_parent->smmu != master->smmu) -return ERR_PTR (-EINVAL ); -/* * FORCE_SYNC is not set with FEAT_NESTING. Some study of the exact HW * defect is needed to determine if arm_vsmmu_cache_invalidate() needs
Signature · 1 line
2.43.0
RE: [PATCH v1 4/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd: Allow a shared s2_parent to allocate vSMMU
Quoted 34 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicolin Chen <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 5:04 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <[email protected]>
Subject: [PATCH v1 4/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd: Allow a shareds2_parentto allocate vSMMUNow, vmids are stored in vSMMU objects. So all vSMMUs assigned to the same
VM can share as2_parentdomain. This means a vIOMMU allocation per device
behind one SMMU can be given with as2_parentdomain that's allocated per
another device behind another SMMU, i.e.s2_parent->smmu!= master-Quoted 1 line
smmu.
Remove the validation line to allow this use case.
Signed-off-by Nicolin Chen <[email protected]>--- drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c +0
-0
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c struct iommufd_viommu *arm_vsmmu_alloc(struct · line 384
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c +0
-3@@ -378,9 +378,6 @@ struct iommufd_viommu *arm_vsmmu_alloc(struct device *dev, if (!(smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_NESTING))return ERR_PTR (-EOPNOTSUPP ); -if (s2_parent->smmu != master->smmu) -return ERR_PTR (-EINVAL ); -
Not sure we can just relax this like this. What if the two physical SMMUs are different in functionality/features? Do we need some kind of sanity check here?
Thanks,
Shameer
Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd: Allow a shared s2_parent to allocate vSMMU
Quoted 9 lines · Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c struct iommufd_viommu *arm_vsmmu_alloc(struct device *dev, · line 383
Quoted 6 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c +0
-3if (!(smmu->features &ARM_SMMU_FEAT_NESTING ))return ERR_PTR (-EOPNOTSUPP ); -if (s2_parent->smmu != master->smmu) -return ERR_PTR (-EINVAL ); -Not sure we can just relax this like this. What if the two physical SMMUs are different in functionality/features? Do we need some kind of sanity check here?
Yes, a function to check if a domain's iopgtbl config is compatible with the instance is required.
Jason
Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd: Allow a shared s2_parent to allocate vSMMU
Quoted 12 lines · Jason Gunthorpe
Quoted 9 lines · Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c struct iommufd_viommu *arm_vsmmu_alloc(struct device *dev, · line 383
Quoted 6 lines
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-iommufd.c +0
-3if (!(smmu->features &ARM_SMMU_FEAT_NESTING ))return ERR_PTR (-EOPNOTSUPP ); -if (s2_parent->smmu != master->smmu) -return ERR_PTR (-EINVAL ); -Not sure we can just relax this like this. What if the two physical SMMUs are different in functionality/features? Do we need some kind of sanity check here?
Quoted 2 lines
Yes, a function to check if a domain's iopgtbl config is compatible with the instance is required.
Yea. Will rework.
Thanks!
Nicolin
Quoted 6 lines · Nicolin Chen
Have a pair of patches getting the functions ready for the vmid migration. Decouple the vmid from S2 parent domains and move its allocation to vSMMU instances. Note that a regular S2 domain (!nest_parent) has to retain the
s2_cfgand vmid for non-nesting use cases, if the SMMU HW doesn't support stage 1. Then, an S2 invalidation has to be iterated for all the vmids in the vSMMU list introduced in the S2 parent domain.
I was planning to also fix the S2 to be able to attach to multiple IOMMU instances at the same time as getting VMID to the viommu.. It doesn't quite make sense to me that viommu would allow multi-attach but the normal cases wouldn't. Did you find a shortcut?
The main issue here was to do this without degrading the invalidation workflow and harming SVA and DMA API performance..
Jason
Quoted 9 lines · Jason Gunthorpe
Quoted 6 lines · Nicolin Chen
Have a pair of patches getting the functions ready for the vmid migration. Decouple the vmid from S2 parent domains and move its allocation to vSMMU instances. Note that a regular S2 domain (!nest_parent) has to retain the
s2_cfgand vmid for non-nesting use cases, if the SMMU HW doesn't support stage 1. Then, an S2 invalidation has to be iterated for all the vmids in the vSMMU list introduced in the S2 parent domain.
Quoted 4 lines
I was planning to also fix the S2 to be able to attach to multiple IOMMU instances at the same time as getting VMID to the viommu.. It doesn't quite make sense to me that viommu would allow multi-attach but the normal cases wouldn't. Did you find a shortcut?
Hmm, not quite following the question. You mean vIOMMU attaching to multiple S2 domains?
Quoted 2 lines
The main issue here was to do this without degrading the invalidation workflow and harming SVA and DMA API performance..
I see.. The ATC_INV and TLBI_NH_ALL will be increased for the shared S2, even if the S2 change is about a device behind one physical SMMU.
Thanks
Nicolin
Quoted 10 lines · Nicolin Chen
Quoted 9 lines · Jason Gunthorpe
Quoted 6 lines · Nicolin Chen
Have a pair of patches getting the functions ready for the vmid migration. Decouple the vmid from S2 parent domains and move its allocation to vSMMU instances. Note that a regular S2 domain (!nest_parent) has to retain the
s2_cfgand vmid for non-nesting use cases, if the SMMU HW doesn't support stage 1. Then, an S2 invalidation has to be iterated for all the vmids in the vSMMU list introduced in the S2 parent domain.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
I was planning to also fix the S2 to be able to attach to multiple IOMMU instances at the same time as getting VMID to the viommu.. It doesn't quite make sense to me that viommu would allow multi-attach but the normal cases wouldn't. Did you find a shortcut?
Hmm, not quite following the question. You mean vIOMMU attaching to multiple S2 domains?
I mean a normal S2 domain attaching to multiple devices on multiple instances.
Jason
Quoted 16 lines · Jason Gunthorpe
Quoted 15 lines · Nicolin Chen
Quoted 13 lines · Jason Gunthorpe
Quoted 6 lines · Nicolin Chen
Have a pair of patches getting the functions ready for the vmid migration. Decouple the vmid from S2 parent domains and move its allocation to vSMMU instances. Note that a regular S2 domain (!nest_parent) has to retain the
s2_cfgand vmid for non-nesting use cases, if the SMMU HW doesn't support stage 1. Then, an S2 invalidation has to be iterated for all the vmids in the vSMMU list introduced in the S2 parent domain.I was planning to also fix the S2 to be able to attach to multiple IOMMU instances at the same time as getting VMID to the viommu.. It doesn't quite make sense to me that viommu would allow multi-attach but the normal cases wouldn't. Did you find a shortcut?
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Hmm, not quite following the question. You mean vIOMMU attaching to multiple S2 domains?
I mean a normal S2 domain attaching to multiple devices on multiple instances.
Oh, I haven't thought about a !nest_parent S2 case.
A nest_parent case will not allow devices to attach the S2 but always to a proxy nested S1 as we discussed previously. So, I think the implementation could be very different?
Thanks
Nicolin
Quoted 8 lines · Nicolin Chen
Quoted 2 lines
I mean a normal S2 domain attaching to multiple devices on multiple instances.
Oh, I haven't thought about a !nest_parent S2 case.
A
nest_parentcase will not allow devices to attach the S2 but always to a proxy nested S1 as we discussed previously. So, I think the implementation could be very different?
It could, and that is what you show here
But also, it could be the same implementation.
Jason
Quoted 7 lines · Jason Gunthorpe
Quoted 5 lines · Nicolin Chen
Quoted 2 lines
I mean a normal S2 domain attaching to multiple devices on multiple instances.
Oh, I haven't thought about a !nest_parent S2 case.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
A
nest_parentcase will not allow devices to attach the S2 but always to a proxy nested S1 as we discussed previously. So, I think the implementation could be very different?It could, and that is what you show here
But also, it could be the same implementation.
OK.
Obviously I underestimated this part of work.
Implementation aside, this at lease needs some assessment of any invalidation impact. I should do some extra tracing.
Thanks
Nicolin