| Message ID | 20200414170252.714402-3-jean-philippe@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | iommu: Shared Virtual Addressing and SMMUv3 support | expand |
> + rcu_read_lock(); > + hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(bond, &io_mm->devices, mm_node) > + io_mm->ops->invalidate(bond->sva.dev, io_mm->pasid, io_mm->ctx, > + start, end - start); > + rcu_read_unlock(); > +} What is the reason that the devices don't register their own notifiers? This kinds of multiplexing is always rather messy, and you do it for all the methods.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:28:52AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > + rcu_read_lock(); > > + hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(bond, &io_mm->devices, mm_node) > > + io_mm->ops->invalidate(bond->sva.dev, io_mm->pasid, io_mm->ctx, > > + start, end - start); > > + rcu_read_unlock(); > > +} > > What is the reason that the devices don't register their own notifiers? > This kinds of multiplexing is always rather messy, and you do it for > all the methods. This sends TLB and ATC invalidations through the IOMMU, it doesn't go through device drivers Thanks, Jean
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:54:02AM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:28:52AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > + rcu_read_lock(); > > > + hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(bond, &io_mm->devices, mm_node) > > > + io_mm->ops->invalidate(bond->sva.dev, io_mm->pasid, io_mm->ctx, > > > + start, end - start); > > > + rcu_read_unlock(); > > > +} > > > > What is the reason that the devices don't register their own notifiers? > > This kinds of multiplexing is always rather messy, and you do it for > > all the methods. > > This sends TLB and ATC invalidations through the IOMMU, it doesn't go > through device drivers I don't think we mean the same thing, probably because of my rather imprecise use of the word device. What I mean is that the mmu_notifier should not be embedded into the io_mm structure (whch btw, seems to have a way to generic name, just like all other io_* prefixed names), but instead into the iommu_bond structure. That avoid the whole multiplexing layer.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 05:13:31AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:54:02AM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:28:52AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > + rcu_read_lock(); > > > > + hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(bond, &io_mm->devices, mm_node) > > > > + io_mm->ops->invalidate(bond->sva.dev, io_mm->pasid, io_mm->ctx, > > > > + start, end - start); > > > > + rcu_read_unlock(); > > > > +} > > > > > > What is the reason that the devices don't register their own notifiers? > > > This kinds of multiplexing is always rather messy, and you do it for > > > all the methods. > > > > This sends TLB and ATC invalidations through the IOMMU, it doesn't go > > through device drivers > > I don't think we mean the same thing, probably because of my rather > imprecise use of the word device. > > What I mean is that the mmu_notifier should not be embedded into the > io_mm structure (whch btw, seems to have a way to generic name, just > like all other io_* prefixed names), but instead into the > iommu_bond structure. That avoid the whole multiplexing layer. Right, I can see the appeal. I still like having a single mmu notifier per mm because it ensures we allocate a single PASID per mm (as required by x86). I suppose one alternative is to maintain a hashtable of mm->pasid, to avoid iterating over all bonds during allocation. Thanks, Jean
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 09:42:13AM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > Right, I can see the appeal. I still like having a single mmu notifier per > mm because it ensures we allocate a single PASID per mm (as required by > x86). I suppose one alternative is to maintain a hashtable of mm->pasid, > to avoid iterating over all bonds during allocation. Given that the PASID is a pretty generic and important concept can we just add it directly to the mm_struct and allocate it lazily once we first need it?
Am 20.04.20 um 10:10 schrieb Christoph Hellwig: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 09:42:13AM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: >> Right, I can see the appeal. I still like having a single mmu notifier per >> mm because it ensures we allocate a single PASID per mm (as required by >> x86). I suppose one alternative is to maintain a hashtable of mm->pasid, >> to avoid iterating over all bonds during allocation. > Given that the PASID is a pretty generic and important concept can > we just add it directly to the mm_struct and allocate it lazily once > we first need it? Well the problem is that the PASID might as well be device specific. E.g. some devices use 16bit PASIDs, some 15bit, some other only 12bit. So what could (at least in theory) happen is that you need to allocate different PASIDs for the same process because different devices need one. Regards, Christian.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 01:44:56PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > Am 20.04.20 um 10:10 schrieb Christoph Hellwig: > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 09:42:13AM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > > > Right, I can see the appeal. I still like having a single mmu notifier per > > > mm because it ensures we allocate a single PASID per mm (as required by > > > x86). I suppose one alternative is to maintain a hashtable of mm->pasid, > > > to avoid iterating over all bonds during allocation. > > Given that the PASID is a pretty generic and important concept can > > we just add it directly to the mm_struct and allocate it lazily once > > we first need it? > > Well the problem is that the PASID might as well be device specific. E.g. > some devices use 16bit PASIDs, some 15bit, some other only 12bit. > > So what could (at least in theory) happen is that you need to allocate > different PASIDs for the same process because different devices need one. This directly contradicts the statement from Jean-Philippe above that x86 requires a single PASID per mm_struct. If we may need different PASIDs for different devices and can actually support this just allocating one per [device, mm_struct] would make most sense of me, as it doesn't couple otherwise disjoint state.
Am 20.04.20 um 13:55 schrieb Christoph Hellwig: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 01:44:56PM +0200, Christian König wrote: >> Am 20.04.20 um 10:10 schrieb Christoph Hellwig: >>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 09:42:13AM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: >>>> Right, I can see the appeal. I still like having a single mmu notifier per >>>> mm because it ensures we allocate a single PASID per mm (as required by >>>> x86). I suppose one alternative is to maintain a hashtable of mm->pasid, >>>> to avoid iterating over all bonds during allocation. >>> Given that the PASID is a pretty generic and important concept can >>> we just add it directly to the mm_struct and allocate it lazily once >>> we first need it? >> Well the problem is that the PASID might as well be device specific. E.g. >> some devices use 16bit PASIDs, some 15bit, some other only 12bit. >> >> So what could (at least in theory) happen is that you need to allocate >> different PASIDs for the same process because different devices need one. > This directly contradicts the statement from Jean-Philippe above that > x86 requires a single PASID per mm_struct. If we may need different > PASIDs for different devices and can actually support this just > allocating one per [device, mm_struct] would make most sense of me, as > it doesn't couple otherwise disjoint state. Well I'm not an expert on this topic. Felix can probably tell you a bit more about that. Maybe it is sufficient to keep the allocated PASIDs as small as possible and return an appropriate error if a device can't deal with the allocated number. If a device can only deal with 12bit PASIDs and more than 2^12 try to use it there isn't much else we can do than returning an error anyway. Regards, Christian.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 09:42:13AM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 05:13:31AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:54:02AM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:28:52AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > + rcu_read_lock(); > > > > > + hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(bond, &io_mm->devices, mm_node) > > > > > + io_mm->ops->invalidate(bond->sva.dev, io_mm->pasid, io_mm->ctx, > > > > > + start, end - start); > > > > > + rcu_read_unlock(); > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > What is the reason that the devices don't register their own notifiers? > > > > This kinds of multiplexing is always rather messy, and you do it for > > > > all the methods. > > > > > > This sends TLB and ATC invalidations through the IOMMU, it doesn't go > > > through device drivers > > > > I don't think we mean the same thing, probably because of my rather > > imprecise use of the word device. > > > > What I mean is that the mmu_notifier should not be embedded into the > > io_mm structure (whch btw, seems to have a way to generic name, just > > like all other io_* prefixed names), but instead into the > > iommu_bond structure. That avoid the whole multiplexing layer. > > Right, I can see the appeal. I still like having a single mmu notifier per > mm because it ensures we allocate a single PASID per mm (as required by > x86). I suppose one alternative is to maintain a hashtable of mm->pasid, > to avoid iterating over all bonds during allocation. I've been getting rid of hash tables like this.. Adding it to the mm_struct does seem reasonable, I think PASID is a pretty broad concept now. Jason
Am 2020-04-20 um 8:40 a.m. schrieb Christian König: > Am 20.04.20 um 13:55 schrieb Christoph Hellwig: >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 01:44:56PM +0200, Christian König wrote: >>> Am 20.04.20 um 10:10 schrieb Christoph Hellwig: >>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 09:42:13AM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: >>>>> Right, I can see the appeal. I still like having a single mmu >>>>> notifier per >>>>> mm because it ensures we allocate a single PASID per mm (as >>>>> required by >>>>> x86). I suppose one alternative is to maintain a hashtable of >>>>> mm->pasid, >>>>> to avoid iterating over all bonds during allocation. >>>> Given that the PASID is a pretty generic and important concept can >>>> we just add it directly to the mm_struct and allocate it lazily once >>>> we first need it? >>> Well the problem is that the PASID might as well be device specific. >>> E.g. >>> some devices use 16bit PASIDs, some 15bit, some other only 12bit. >>> >>> So what could (at least in theory) happen is that you need to allocate >>> different PASIDs for the same process because different devices need >>> one. >> This directly contradicts the statement from Jean-Philippe above that >> x86 requires a single PASID per mm_struct. If we may need different >> PASIDs for different devices and can actually support this just >> allocating one per [device, mm_struct] would make most sense of me, as >> it doesn't couple otherwise disjoint state. > > Well I'm not an expert on this topic. Felix can probably tell you a > bit more about that. > > Maybe it is sufficient to keep the allocated PASIDs as small as > possible and return an appropriate error if a device can't deal with > the allocated number. > > If a device can only deal with 12bit PASIDs and more than 2^12 try to > use it there isn't much else we can do than returning an error anyway. I'm probably missing some context. But let me try giving a useful reply. The hardware allows you to have different PASIDs for each device referring to the same address space. But I think it's OK for software to choose not to do that. If Linux wants to manage one PASID namespace for all devices, that's a reasonable choice IMO. Different devices have different limits for the size of PASID they can support. For example AMD GPUs support 16-bits but the IOMMU supports less. So on APUs we use small PASIDs for contexts that want to use IOMMUv2 to access memory, but bigger PASIDs for contexts that do not. I choose the word "context" deliberately, because the amdgpu driver uses PASIDs even when we're not using IOMMUv2, and we're using them to identify GPU virtual address spaces. There can be more than one per process. In practice you can have two, one for graphics (not SVM, doesn't use IOMMUv2) and one for KFD compute (SVM, can use IOMMUv2 on APUs). Because the IOMMUv2 supports only smaller PASIDs, we want to avoid exhausting that space with PASID allocations that don't use the IOMMUv2. So our PASID allocation function has a "size" parameter, and we try to allocated a PASID as big as possible in order to leave more precious smaller PASIDs for contexts that need them. The bottom line is, when you allocate a PASID for a context, you want to know how small it needs to be for all the devices that want to use it. If you make it too big, some device will not be able to use it. If you make it too small, you waste precious PASIDs that could be used for other contexts that need them. Regards, Felix
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 11:00:28 -0400 Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@amd.com> wrote: > Am 2020-04-20 um 8:40 a.m. schrieb Christian König: > > Am 20.04.20 um 13:55 schrieb Christoph Hellwig: > >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 01:44:56PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > >>> Am 20.04.20 um 10:10 schrieb Christoph Hellwig: > >>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 09:42:13AM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> Right, I can see the appeal. I still like having a single mmu > >>>>> notifier per > >>>>> mm because it ensures we allocate a single PASID per mm (as > >>>>> required by > >>>>> x86). I suppose one alternative is to maintain a hashtable of > >>>>> mm->pasid, > >>>>> to avoid iterating over all bonds during allocation. > >>>> Given that the PASID is a pretty generic and important concept > >>>> can we just add it directly to the mm_struct and allocate it > >>>> lazily once we first need it? > >>> Well the problem is that the PASID might as well be device > >>> specific. E.g. > >>> some devices use 16bit PASIDs, some 15bit, some other only 12bit. > >>> > >>> So what could (at least in theory) happen is that you need to > >>> allocate different PASIDs for the same process because different > >>> devices need one. > >> This directly contradicts the statement from Jean-Philippe above > >> that x86 requires a single PASID per mm_struct. If we may need > >> different PASIDs for different devices and can actually support > >> this just allocating one per [device, mm_struct] would make most > >> sense of me, as it doesn't couple otherwise disjoint state. > > > > Well I'm not an expert on this topic. Felix can probably tell you a > > bit more about that. > > > > Maybe it is sufficient to keep the allocated PASIDs as small as > > possible and return an appropriate error if a device can't deal with > > the allocated number. > > > > If a device can only deal with 12bit PASIDs and more than 2^12 try > > to use it there isn't much else we can do than returning an error > > anyway. > > I'm probably missing some context. But let me try giving a useful > reply. > > The hardware allows you to have different PASIDs for each device > referring to the same address space. But I think it's OK for software > to choose not to do that. If Linux wants to manage one PASID > namespace for all devices, that's a reasonable choice IMO. > On VT-d, system wide PASID namespace is required. Here is a section of the documentation I am working on. Namespaces ==================================================== IOASIDs are limited system resources that default to 20 bits in size. Since each device has its own table, theoretically the namespace can be per device also. However, VT-d also supports shared workqueue and ENQCMD[1] where one IOASID could be used to submit work on multiple devices. This requires IOASID to be system-wide on Intel VT-d platforms. This is also the reason why guest must use emulated virtual command interface to allocate IOASID from the host. On VT-d, storage of IOASID table is at per device while the granularity of assignment is per IOASID. Even though, each guest IOASID must have a backing host IOASID, guest IOASID can be different than its host IOASID. The namespace of guest IOASID is controlled by VMM, which decideds whether identity mapping of G-H IOASIDs is necessary. 1. https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/c5/15/architecture-instruction-set-extensions-programming-reference.pdf For the per mm_struct PASID question by Christian, we are proposing that in x86 context and a lazy free. https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/3/30/910 > Different devices have different limits for the size of PASID they can > support. For example AMD GPUs support 16-bits but the IOMMU supports > less. So on APUs we use small PASIDs for contexts that want to use > IOMMUv2 to access memory, but bigger PASIDs for contexts that do not. > > I choose the word "context" deliberately, because the amdgpu driver > uses PASIDs even when we're not using IOMMUv2, and we're using them to > identify GPU virtual address spaces. There can be more than one per > process. In practice you can have two, one for graphics (not SVM, > doesn't use IOMMUv2) and one for KFD compute (SVM, can use IOMMUv2 on > APUs). > > Because the IOMMUv2 supports only smaller PASIDs, we want to avoid > exhausting that space with PASID allocations that don't use the > IOMMUv2. So our PASID allocation function has a "size" parameter, and > we try to allocated a PASID as big as possible in order to leave more > precious smaller PASIDs for contexts that need them. > > The bottom line is, when you allocate a PASID for a context, you want > to know how small it needs to be for all the devices that want to use > it. If you make it too big, some device will not be able to use it. > If you make it too small, you waste precious PASIDs that could be > used for other contexts that need them. > So for AMD, system-wide PASID allocation works with the restriction/optimization above? > Regards, > Felix > [Jacob Pan]
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 10:57:27 -0300 Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 09:42:13AM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 05:13:31AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:54:02AM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker > > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:28:52AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig > > > > wrote: > > > > > > + rcu_read_lock(); > > > > > > + hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(bond, &io_mm->devices, > > > > > > mm_node) > > > > > > + io_mm->ops->invalidate(bond->sva.dev, > > > > > > io_mm->pasid, io_mm->ctx, > > > > > > + start, end - start); > > > > > > + rcu_read_unlock(); > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > > > What is the reason that the devices don't register their own > > > > > notifiers? This kinds of multiplexing is always rather messy, > > > > > and you do it for all the methods. > > > > > > > > This sends TLB and ATC invalidations through the IOMMU, it > > > > doesn't go through device drivers > > > > > > I don't think we mean the same thing, probably because of my > > > rather imprecise use of the word device. > > > > > > What I mean is that the mmu_notifier should not be embedded into > > > the io_mm structure (whch btw, seems to have a way to generic > > > name, just like all other io_* prefixed names), but instead into > > > the iommu_bond structure. That avoid the whole multiplexing > > > layer. > > > > Right, I can see the appeal. I still like having a single mmu > > notifier per mm because it ensures we allocate a single PASID per > > mm (as required by x86). I suppose one alternative is to maintain a > > hashtable of mm->pasid, to avoid iterating over all bonds during > > allocation. > > I've been getting rid of hash tables like this.. Adding it to the > mm_struct does seem reasonable, I think PASID is a pretty broad > concept now. > Agreed, perhaps Fenghua can consider that in his patchset. It would help align life cycles as well. https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/3/30/910 > Jason [Jacob Pan]
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:48:50AM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote: > On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 10:57:27 -0300 > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 09:42:13AM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 05:13:31AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:54:02AM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:28:52AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > + rcu_read_lock(); > > > > > > > + hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(bond, &io_mm->devices, > > > > > > > mm_node) > > > > > > > + io_mm->ops->invalidate(bond->sva.dev, > > > > > > > io_mm->pasid, io_mm->ctx, > > > > > > > + start, end - start); > > > > > > > + rcu_read_unlock(); > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the reason that the devices don't register their own > > > > > > notifiers? This kinds of multiplexing is always rather messy, > > > > > > and you do it for all the methods. > > > > > > > > > > This sends TLB and ATC invalidations through the IOMMU, it > > > > > doesn't go through device drivers > > > > > > > > I don't think we mean the same thing, probably because of my > > > > rather imprecise use of the word device. > > > > > > > > What I mean is that the mmu_notifier should not be embedded into > > > > the io_mm structure (whch btw, seems to have a way to generic > > > > name, just like all other io_* prefixed names), but instead into > > > > the iommu_bond structure. That avoid the whole multiplexing > > > > layer. > > > > > > Right, I can see the appeal. I still like having a single mmu > > > notifier per mm because it ensures we allocate a single PASID per > > > mm (as required by x86). I suppose one alternative is to maintain a > > > hashtable of mm->pasid, to avoid iterating over all bonds during > > > allocation. > > > > I've been getting rid of hash tables like this.. Adding it to the > > mm_struct does seem reasonable, I think PASID is a pretty broad > > concept now. > > > Agreed, perhaps Fenghua can consider that in his patchset. It would > help align life cycles as well. > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/3/30/910> Seems we depend on each other: my patch defines pasid in mm_struct. I can free PASID in your detach() function. Thanks. -Fenghua
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:14:37AM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote: > > Agreed, perhaps Fenghua can consider that in his patchset. It would > > help align life cycles as well. > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/3/30/910> > > Seems we depend on each other: my patch defines pasid in mm_struct. > I can free PASID in your detach() function. Looks like this should go into the same series. I also don't see any good reason to have the pasid in the x86-specific context vs the common mm_struct.
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/Kconfig b/drivers/iommu/Kconfig index 58b4a4dbfc78b..e81842f59b037 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/iommu/Kconfig @@ -102,6 +102,13 @@ config IOMMU_DMA select IRQ_MSI_IOMMU select NEED_SG_DMA_LENGTH +# Shared Virtual Addressing library +config IOMMU_SVA + bool + select IOASID + select IOMMU_API + select MMU_NOTIFIER + config FSL_PAMU bool "Freescale IOMMU support" depends on PCI diff --git a/drivers/iommu/Makefile b/drivers/iommu/Makefile index 9f33fdb3bb051..40c800dd4e3ef 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/Makefile +++ b/drivers/iommu/Makefile @@ -37,3 +37,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_S390_IOMMU) += s390-iommu.o obj-$(CONFIG_QCOM_IOMMU) += qcom_iommu.o obj-$(CONFIG_HYPERV_IOMMU) += hyperv-iommu.o obj-$(CONFIG_VIRTIO_IOMMU) += virtio-iommu.o +obj-$(CONFIG_IOMMU_SVA) += iommu-sva.o diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.h b/drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.h new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000..3c4c7e886a6be --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.h @@ -0,0 +1,78 @@ +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ +/* + * SVA library for IOMMU drivers + */ +#ifndef _IOMMU_SVA_H +#define _IOMMU_SVA_H + +#include <linux/iommu.h> +#include <linux/kref.h> +#include <linux/mmu_notifier.h> + +struct io_mm_ops { + /* Allocate a PASID context for an mm */ + void *(*alloc)(struct mm_struct *mm); + + /* + * Attach a PASID context to a device. Write the entry into the PASID + * table. + * + * @attach_domain is true when no other device in the IOMMU domain is + * already attached to this context. IOMMU drivers that share the + * PASID tables within a domain don't need to write the PASID entry + * when @attach_domain is false. + */ + int (*attach)(struct device *dev, int pasid, void *ctx, + bool attach_domain); + + /* Invalidate a range of addresses. Cannot sleep. */ + void (*invalidate)(struct device *dev, int pasid, void *ctx, + unsigned long vaddr, size_t size); + + /* + * Clear a PASID context, invalidate IOTLBs. Called when the address + * space attached to this context exits. Until detach() is called, the + * PASID is not freed. The IOMMU driver should expect incoming DMA + * transactions for this PASID and abort them quietly. The IOMMU driver + * can still queue incoming page faults for this PASID, they will be + * silently aborted. + */ + void (*clear)(struct device *dev, int pasid, void *ctx); + + /* + * Detach a PASID context from a device. Unlike exit() this is final. + * There are no more incoming DMA transactions, and page faults have + * been flushed. + * + * @detach_domain is true when no other device in the IOMMU domain is + * still attached to this context. IOMMU drivers that share the PASID + * table within a domain don't need to clear the PASID entry when + * @detach_domain is false, only invalidate the caches. + * + * @cleared is true if the clear() op has already been called for this + * context. In this case there is no need to invalidate IOTLBs + */ + void (*detach)(struct device *dev, int pasid, void *ctx, + bool detach_domain, bool cleared); + + /* Free a context. Cannot sleep. */ + void (*free)(void *ctx); +}; + +struct iommu_sva_param { + u32 min_pasid; + u32 max_pasid; + int nr_bonds; +}; + +struct iommu_sva * +iommu_sva_bind_generic(struct device *dev, struct mm_struct *mm, + const struct io_mm_ops *ops, void *drvdata); +void iommu_sva_unbind_generic(struct iommu_sva *handle); +int iommu_sva_get_pasid_generic(struct iommu_sva *handle); + +int iommu_sva_enable(struct device *dev, struct iommu_sva_param *sva_param); +int iommu_sva_disable(struct device *dev); +bool iommu_sva_enabled(struct device *dev); + +#endif /* _IOMMU_SVA_H */ diff --git a/include/linux/iommu.h b/include/linux/iommu.h index b62525747bd91..167e468dd3510 100644 --- a/include/linux/iommu.h +++ b/include/linux/iommu.h @@ -347,6 +347,8 @@ struct iommu_fault_param { * struct dev_iommu - Collection of per-device IOMMU data * * @fault_param: IOMMU detected device fault reporting data + * @sva_param: IOMMU parameter for SVA + * @sva_lock: protects @sva_param * @fwspec: IOMMU fwspec data * @priv: IOMMU Driver private data * @@ -356,6 +358,8 @@ struct iommu_fault_param { struct dev_iommu { struct mutex lock; struct iommu_fault_param *fault_param; + struct iommu_sva_param *sva_param; + struct mutex sva_lock; struct iommu_fwspec *fwspec; void *priv; }; diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000..7fecc74a9f7d6 --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.c @@ -0,0 +1,527 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +/* + * Manage PASIDs and bind process address spaces to devices. + * + * Copyright (C) 2020 ARM Ltd. + */ + +#include <linux/idr.h> +#include <linux/ioasid.h> +#include <linux/iommu.h> +#include <linux/sched/mm.h> +#include <linux/slab.h> +#include <linux/spinlock.h> + +#include "iommu-sva.h" + +/** + * DOC: io_mm model + * + * The io_mm keeps track of process address spaces shared between CPU and IOMMU. + * The following example illustrates the relation between structures + * iommu_domain, io_mm and iommu_sva. The iommu_sva struct is a bond between + * io_mm and device. A device can have multiple io_mm and an io_mm may be bound + * to multiple devices. + * ___________________________ + * | IOMMU domain A | + * | ________________ | + * | | IOMMU group | | + * | | | | + * | | dev 00:00.0 ----+------- bond 1 --- io_mm X + * | |________________| \ | + * | '----- bond 2 ---. + * |___________________________| \ + * ___________________________ \ + * | IOMMU domain B | io_mm Y + * | ________________ | / / + * | | IOMMU group | | / / + * | | | | / / + * | | dev 00:01.0 ------------ bond 3 -' / + * | | dev 00:01.1 ------------ bond 4 --' + * | |________________| | + * |___________________________| + * + * In this example, device 00:00.0 is in domain A, devices 00:01.* are in domain + * B. All devices within the same domain access the same address spaces. Device + * 00:00.0 accesses address spaces X and Y, each corresponding to an mm_struct. + * Devices 00:01.* only access address space Y. + * + * To obtain the above configuration, users would for instance issue the + * following calls: + * + * iommu_sva_bind_device(dev 00:00.0, mm X, ...) -> bond 1 + * iommu_sva_bind_device(dev 00:00.0, mm Y, ...) -> bond 2 + * iommu_sva_bind_device(dev 00:01.0, mm Y, ...) -> bond 3 + * iommu_sva_bind_device(dev 00:01.1, mm Y, ...) -> bond 4 + * + * A single Process Address Space ID (PASID) is allocated for each mm. It is a + * choice made for the Linux SVA implementation, not a hardware restriction. In + * the example, devices use PASID 1 to read/write into address space X and PASID + * 2 to read/write into address space Y. Calling iommu_sva_get_pasid() on bond 1 + * returns 1, and calling it on bonds 2-4 returns 2. + * + * Hardware tables describing this configuration in the IOMMU would typically + * look like this: + * + * PASID tables + * of domain A + * .->+--------+ + * / 0 | |-------> io_pgtable + * / +--------+ + * Device tables / 1 | |-------> pgd X + * +--------+ / +--------+ + * 00:00.0 | A |-' 2 | |--. + * +--------+ +--------+ \ + * : : 3 | | \ + * +--------+ +--------+ --> pgd Y + * 00:01.0 | B |--. / + * +--------+ \ | + * 00:01.1 | B |----+ PASID tables | + * +--------+ \ of domain B | + * '->+--------+ | + * 0 | |-- | --> io_pgtable + * +--------+ | + * 1 | | | + * +--------+ | + * 2 | |---' + * +--------+ + * 3 | | + * +--------+ + * + * With this model, a single call binds all devices in a given domain to an + * address space. Other devices in the domain will get the same bond implicitly. + * However, users must issue one bind() for each device, because IOMMUs may + * implement SVA differently. Furthermore, mandating one bind() per device + * allows the driver to perform sanity-checks on device capabilities. + * + * In some IOMMUs, one entry of the PASID table (typically the first one) can + * hold non-PASID translations. In this case PASID 0 is reserved and the first + * entry points to the io_pgtable pointer. In other IOMMUs PASID 0 is available + * to the allocator. + */ + +struct io_mm { + struct hlist_head devices; + struct mm_struct *mm; + struct mmu_notifier notifier; + + /* Late initialization */ + const struct io_mm_ops *ops; + void *ctx; + int pasid; +}; + +#define mn_to_io_mm(mmu_notifier) \ + container_of(mmu_notifier, struct io_mm, notifier) + +struct iommu_bond { + struct iommu_sva sva; + struct io_mm *io_mm; + + struct hlist_node mm_node; + void *drvdata; + struct rcu_head rcu_head; + refcount_t refs; + bool cleared; +}; + +#define to_iommu_bond(handle) container_of(handle, struct iommu_bond, sva) + +static DECLARE_IOASID_SET(shared_pasid); + +/* + * Serializes modifications of bonds. + * Lock order: Device SVA mutex; global SVA mutex; IOASID lock + */ +static DEFINE_MUTEX(iommu_sva_lock); + +struct io_mm_alloc_params { + const struct io_mm_ops *ops; + int min_pasid, max_pasid; +}; + +static struct mmu_notifier *io_mm_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm, void *privdata) +{ + int ret; + struct io_mm *io_mm; + struct io_mm_alloc_params *params = privdata; + + io_mm = kzalloc(sizeof(*io_mm), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!io_mm) + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); + + io_mm->mm = mm; + io_mm->ops = params->ops; + INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&io_mm->devices); + + io_mm->pasid = ioasid_alloc(&shared_pasid, params->min_pasid, + params->max_pasid, io_mm->mm); + if (io_mm->pasid == INVALID_IOASID) { + ret = -ENOSPC; + goto err_free_io_mm; + } + + io_mm->ctx = params->ops->alloc(mm); + if (IS_ERR(io_mm->ctx)) { + ret = PTR_ERR(io_mm->ctx); + goto err_free_pasid; + } + return &io_mm->notifier; + +err_free_pasid: + ioasid_free(io_mm->pasid); +err_free_io_mm: + kfree(io_mm); + return ERR_PTR(ret); +} + +static void io_mm_free(struct mmu_notifier *mn) +{ + struct io_mm *io_mm = mn_to_io_mm(mn); + + WARN_ON(!hlist_empty(&io_mm->devices)); + + io_mm->ops->free(io_mm->ctx); + ioasid_free(io_mm->pasid); + kfree(io_mm); +} + +static void io_mm_invalidate_range(struct mmu_notifier *mn, + struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start, + unsigned long end) +{ + struct iommu_bond *bond; + struct io_mm *io_mm = mn_to_io_mm(mn); + + rcu_read_lock(); + hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(bond, &io_mm->devices, mm_node) + io_mm->ops->invalidate(bond->sva.dev, io_mm->pasid, io_mm->ctx, + start, end - start); + rcu_read_unlock(); +} + +/* + * io_mm_release - release MMU notifier + * + * Called when the mm exits. To avoid spending too much time in here, we only + * clear page table pointers and invalidate IOTLBs here, but we don't stop DMA + * or free anything here. + */ +static void io_mm_release(struct mmu_notifier *mn, struct mm_struct *mm) +{ + struct iommu_bond *bond; + struct io_mm *io_mm = mn_to_io_mm(mn); + + mutex_lock(&iommu_sva_lock); + hlist_for_each_entry(bond, &io_mm->devices, mm_node) { + /* The release notifier could fire multiple times. */ + if (bond->cleared) + continue; + + io_mm->ops->clear(bond->sva.dev, io_mm->pasid, io_mm->ctx); + bond->cleared = true; + } + mutex_unlock(&iommu_sva_lock); +} + +static struct mmu_notifier_ops iommu_mmu_notifier_ops = { + .alloc_notifier = io_mm_alloc, + .free_notifier = io_mm_free, + .invalidate_range = io_mm_invalidate_range, + .release = io_mm_release, +}; + +/* + * io_mm_get - Allocate an io_mm or get the existing one for the given mm + * @mm: the mm + * @ops: callbacks for the IOMMU driver + * @min_pasid: minimum PASID value (inclusive) + * @max_pasid: maximum PASID value (inclusive) + * + * Returns a valid io_mm or an error pointer. + */ +static struct io_mm *io_mm_get(struct mm_struct *mm, + const struct io_mm_ops *ops, + int min_pasid, int max_pasid) +{ + struct io_mm *io_mm; + struct mmu_notifier *mn; + struct io_mm_alloc_params params = { + .ops = ops, + .min_pasid = min_pasid, + .max_pasid = max_pasid, + }; + + /* + * A single notifier can exist for this (ops, mm) pair. Allocate it if + * necessary. + */ + mn = mmu_notifier_get(&iommu_mmu_notifier_ops, mm, ¶ms); + if (IS_ERR(mn)) + return ERR_CAST(mn); + + io_mm = mn_to_io_mm(mn); + if (WARN_ON(io_mm->ops != ops)) { + mmu_notifier_put(mn); + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); + } + + return io_mm; +} + +static void io_mm_put(struct io_mm *io_mm) +{ + mmu_notifier_put(&io_mm->notifier); +} + +static struct iommu_sva * +io_mm_attach(struct device *dev, struct io_mm *io_mm, void *drvdata) +{ + int ret; + bool attach_domain = true; + struct iommu_bond *bond, *tmp; + struct iommu_domain *domain, *other; + struct iommu_sva_param *param = dev->iommu->sva_param; + + domain = iommu_get_domain_for_dev(dev); + + /* Is it already bound to the device or domain? */ + hlist_for_each_entry(tmp, &io_mm->devices, mm_node) { + if (tmp->sva.dev == dev) { + if (WARN_ON(tmp->drvdata != drvdata)) + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); + + /* + * Hold a single io_mm reference per bond. Note that we + * can't return an error after this, otherwise the + * caller would drop an additional reference to the + * io_mm. + */ + refcount_inc(&tmp->refs); + io_mm_put(io_mm); + return &tmp->sva; + } + + if (!attach_domain) + continue; + + other = iommu_get_domain_for_dev(tmp->sva.dev); + if (domain == other) + attach_domain = false; + } + + bond = kzalloc(sizeof(*bond), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!bond) + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); + + bond->sva.dev = dev; + bond->drvdata = drvdata; + bond->io_mm = io_mm; + refcount_set(&bond->refs, 1); + + hlist_add_head_rcu(&bond->mm_node, &io_mm->devices); + + ret = io_mm->ops->attach(bond->sva.dev, io_mm->pasid, io_mm->ctx, + attach_domain); + if (ret) + goto err_remove; + + param->nr_bonds++; + return &bond->sva; + +err_remove: + /* + * At this point concurrent threads may have started to access the + * io_mm->devices list in order to invalidate address ranges, which + * requires to free the bond via kfree_rcu() + */ + hlist_del_init_rcu(&bond->mm_node); + kfree_rcu(bond, rcu_head); + return ERR_PTR(ret); +} + +static void io_mm_detach(struct iommu_bond *bond) +{ + struct iommu_bond *tmp; + bool detach_domain = true; + struct io_mm *io_mm = bond->io_mm; + struct device *dev = bond->sva.dev; + struct iommu_domain *domain, *other; + struct iommu_sva_param *param = dev->iommu->sva_param; + + if (!refcount_dec_and_test(&bond->refs)) + return; + + param->nr_bonds--; + + domain = iommu_get_domain_for_dev(bond->sva.dev); + + /* Are other devices in the same domain still attached to this mm? */ + hlist_for_each_entry(tmp, &io_mm->devices, mm_node) { + if (tmp == bond) + continue; + other = iommu_get_domain_for_dev(tmp->sva.dev); + if (domain == other) { + detach_domain = false; + break; + } + } + + io_mm->ops->detach(bond->sva.dev, io_mm->pasid, io_mm->ctx, + detach_domain, bond->cleared); + + hlist_del_init_rcu(&bond->mm_node); + kfree_rcu(bond, rcu_head); + io_mm_put(io_mm); +} + + +struct iommu_sva * +iommu_sva_bind_generic(struct device *dev, struct mm_struct *mm, + const struct io_mm_ops *ops, void *drvdata) +{ + struct io_mm *io_mm; + struct iommu_sva *handle; + struct dev_iommu *param = dev->iommu; + + if (!param) + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); + + mutex_lock(¶m->sva_lock); + mutex_lock(&iommu_sva_lock); + if (!param->sva_param) { + handle = ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); + goto out_unlock; + } + + io_mm = io_mm_get(mm, ops, param->sva_param->min_pasid, + param->sva_param->max_pasid); + if (IS_ERR(io_mm)) { + handle = ERR_CAST(io_mm); + goto out_unlock; + } + + handle = io_mm_attach(dev, io_mm, drvdata); + if (IS_ERR(handle)) + io_mm_put(io_mm); + +out_unlock: + mutex_unlock(&iommu_sva_lock); + mutex_unlock(¶m->sva_lock); + return handle; +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iommu_sva_bind_generic); + +void iommu_sva_unbind_generic(struct iommu_sva *handle) +{ + struct iommu_bond *bond = to_iommu_bond(handle); + struct dev_iommu *param = handle->dev->iommu; + + if (WARN_ON(!param)) + return; + + mutex_lock(¶m->sva_lock); + mutex_lock(&iommu_sva_lock); + io_mm_detach(bond); + mutex_unlock(&iommu_sva_lock); + mutex_unlock(¶m->sva_lock); +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iommu_sva_unbind_generic); + +/** + * iommu_sva_enable() - Enable Shared Virtual Addressing for a device + * @dev: the device + * @sva_param: the parameters. + * + * Called by an IOMMU driver to setup the SVA parameters + * @sva_param is duplicated and can be freed when this function returns. + * + * Return 0 if initialization succeeded, or an error. + */ +int iommu_sva_enable(struct device *dev, struct iommu_sva_param *sva_param) +{ + int ret; + struct iommu_sva_param *new_param; + struct dev_iommu *param = dev->iommu; + + if (!param) + return -ENODEV; + + new_param = kmemdup(sva_param, sizeof(*new_param), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!new_param) + return -ENOMEM; + + mutex_lock(¶m->sva_lock); + if (param->sva_param) { + ret = -EEXIST; + goto err_unlock; + } + + dev->iommu->sva_param = new_param; + mutex_unlock(¶m->sva_lock); + return 0; + +err_unlock: + mutex_unlock(¶m->sva_lock); + kfree(new_param); + return ret; +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iommu_sva_enable); + +/** + * iommu_sva_disable() - Disable Shared Virtual Addressing for a device + * @dev: the device + * + * IOMMU drivers call this to disable SVA. + */ +int iommu_sva_disable(struct device *dev) +{ + int ret = 0; + struct dev_iommu *param = dev->iommu; + + if (!param) + return -EINVAL; + + mutex_lock(¶m->sva_lock); + if (!param->sva_param) { + ret = -ENODEV; + goto out_unlock; + } + + /* Require that all contexts are unbound */ + if (param->sva_param->nr_bonds) { + ret = -EBUSY; + goto out_unlock; + } + + kfree(param->sva_param); + param->sva_param = NULL; +out_unlock: + mutex_unlock(¶m->sva_lock); + + return ret; +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iommu_sva_disable); + +bool iommu_sva_enabled(struct device *dev) +{ + bool enabled; + struct dev_iommu *param = dev->iommu; + + if (!param) + return false; + + mutex_lock(¶m->sva_lock); + enabled = !!param->sva_param; + mutex_unlock(¶m->sva_lock); + return enabled; +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iommu_sva_enabled); + +int iommu_sva_get_pasid_generic(struct iommu_sva *handle) +{ + struct iommu_bond *bond = to_iommu_bond(handle); + + return bond->io_mm->pasid; +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iommu_sva_get_pasid_generic); diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c index dfed12328c032..6cc2ab6889e50 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c @@ -164,6 +164,7 @@ static struct dev_iommu *dev_iommu_get(struct device *dev) return NULL; mutex_init(¶m->lock); + mutex_init(¶m->sva_lock); dev->iommu = param; return param; }
Add a small library to help IOMMU drivers manage process address spaces bound to their devices. Register an MMU notifier to track modification on each address space bound to one or more devices. IOMMU drivers must implement the io_mm_ops and can then use the helpers provided by this library to easily implement the SVA API introduced by commit 26b25a2b98e4 ("iommu: Bind process address spaces to devices"). The io_mm_ops are: alloc: Allocate a PASID context private to the IOMMU driver. There is a single context per mm. IOMMU drivers may perform arch-specific operations in there, for example pinning down a CPU ASID (on Arm). attach: Attach a context to the device, by setting up the PASID table entry. invalidate: Invalidate TLB entries for this address range. clear: Clear the context and invalidate IOTLBs. Called if the mm exits before unbind(). DMA may still be issued. detach: Detach a context from the device. Unlike clear() this is always called, at unbind(), and DMA aren't issued anymore. free: Free a context. Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org> --- v4->v5: * Simplify locking * Add clear() op * Improve doc --- drivers/iommu/Kconfig | 7 + drivers/iommu/Makefile | 1 + drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.h | 78 ++++++ include/linux/iommu.h | 4 + drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.c | 527 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 1 + 6 files changed, 618 insertions(+) create mode 100644 drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.h create mode 100644 drivers/iommu/iommu-sva.c