linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc: Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	will@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nicolinc@nvidia.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
	zhi.wang.linux@gmail.com, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: Notify on pte permission upgrades
Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 09:52:33 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZHXxkUe4IZXUc1PV@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d2e591c1-eb43-377b-d396-8335f77acef6@arm.com>

On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 01:14:41PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2023-05-30 12:54, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 06:05:41PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > As no notification is sent and the SMMU does not snoop TLB invalidates
> > > > > it will continue to return read-only entries to a device even though
> > > > > the CPU page table contains a writable entry. This leads to a
> > > > > continually faulting device and no way of handling the fault.
> > > > 
> > > > Doesn't the fault generate a PRI/etc? If we get a PRI maybe we should
> > > > just have the iommu driver push an iotlb invalidation command before
> > > > it acks it? PRI is already really slow so I'm not sure a pipelined
> > > > invalidation is going to be a problem? Does the SMMU architecture
> > > > permit negative caching which would suggest we need it anyhow?
> > > 
> > > Yes, SMMU architecture (which matches the ARM architecture in regards to
> > > TLB maintenance requirements) permits negative caching of some mapping
> > > attributes including the read-only attribute. Hence without the flushing
> > > we fault continuously.
> > 
> > Sounds like a straight up SMMU bug, invalidate the cache after
> > resolving the PRI event.
> 
> No, if the IOPF handler calls back into the mm layer to resolve the fault,
> and the mm layer issues an invalidation in the process of that which isn't
> propagated back to the SMMU (as it would be if BTM were in use), logically
> that's the mm layer's failing. The SMMU driver shouldn't have to issue extra
> mostly-redundant invalidations just because different CPU architectures have
> different idiosyncracies around caching of permissions.

The mm has a definition for invalidate_range that does not include all
the invalidation points SMMU needs. This is difficult to sort out
because this is general purpose cross arch stuff.

You are right that this is worth optimizing, but right now we have a
-rc bug that needs fixing and adding and extra SMMU invalidation is a
straightforward -rc friendly way to address it.

Jason


  reply	other threads:[~2023-05-30 12:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-05-24  1:47 [PATCH 1/2] mmu_notifiers: Restore documentation for .invalidate_range() Alistair Popple
2023-05-24  1:47 ` [PATCH 2/2] arm64: Notify on pte permission upgrades Alistair Popple
2023-05-28  0:02   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-05-30  8:05     ` Alistair Popple
2023-05-30 11:54       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-05-30 12:14         ` Robin Murphy
2023-05-30 12:52           ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2023-05-30 13:44             ` Robin Murphy
2023-05-30 14:06               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-05-30 21:44                 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-05-30 23:08                   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-05-31  0:30                     ` Alistair Popple
2023-05-31  0:32                       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-05-31  2:46                         ` Alistair Popple
2023-05-31 15:30                           ` Jason Gunthorpe
     [not found]                       ` <31cdd164783fefad4c9ef4a6d33c1e0094405d0f03added523a82dd9febdf15f@mu.id>
2023-06-09  2:06                         ` Alistair Popple
2023-06-09  6:05                           ` Alistair Popple
2023-05-24  2:20 ` [PATCH 1/2] mmu_notifiers: Restore documentation for .invalidate_range() John Hubbard
2023-05-24  4:45   ` Alistair Popple
2023-05-24  3:48 ` Zhi Wang
2023-05-24  4:57   ` Alistair Popple

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=ZHXxkUe4IZXUc1PV@nvidia.com \
    --to=jgg@nvidia.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=nicolinc@nvidia.com \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=zhi.wang.linux@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox