| Message ID | 20200519175502.2504091-14-jean-philippe@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | iommu: Shared Virtual Addressing for SMMUv3 | expand |
[+Marc] On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 07:54:51PM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > The SMMUv3 can handle invalidation targeted at TLB entries with shared > ASIDs. If the implementation supports broadcast TLB maintenance, enable it > and keep track of it in a feature bit. The SMMU will then be affected by > inner-shareable TLB invalidations from other agents. > > A major side-effect of this change is that stage-2 translation contexts > are now affected by all invalidations by VMID. VMIDs are all shared and > the only ways to prevent over-invalidation, since the stage-2 page tables > are not shared between CPU and SMMU, are to either disable BTM or allocate > different VMIDs. This patch does not address the problem. This sounds like a potential performance issue, particularly as we expose stage-2 contexts via VFIO directly. Maybe we could reserve some portion of VMID space for the SMMU? Marc, what do you reckon? Will
On 2020-05-21 15:17, Will Deacon wrote: > [+Marc] > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 07:54:51PM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: >> The SMMUv3 can handle invalidation targeted at TLB entries with shared >> ASIDs. If the implementation supports broadcast TLB maintenance, >> enable it >> and keep track of it in a feature bit. The SMMU will then be affected >> by >> inner-shareable TLB invalidations from other agents. >> >> A major side-effect of this change is that stage-2 translation >> contexts >> are now affected by all invalidations by VMID. VMIDs are all shared >> and >> the only ways to prevent over-invalidation, since the stage-2 page >> tables >> are not shared between CPU and SMMU, are to either disable BTM or >> allocate >> different VMIDs. This patch does not address the problem. > > This sounds like a potential performance issue, particularly as we > expose > stage-2 contexts via VFIO directly. Maybe we could reserve some portion > of > VMID space for the SMMU? Marc, what do you reckon? Certainly doable when we have 16bits VMIDs. With smaller VMID spaces (like on v8.0), this is a bit more difficult (we do have pretty large v8.0 systems around). How many VMID bits are we talking about? M.
[+Eric] On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 03:38:35PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 2020-05-21 15:17, Will Deacon wrote: > > [+Marc] > > > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 07:54:51PM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > > > The SMMUv3 can handle invalidation targeted at TLB entries with shared > > > ASIDs. If the implementation supports broadcast TLB maintenance, > > > enable it > > > and keep track of it in a feature bit. The SMMU will then be > > > affected by > > > inner-shareable TLB invalidations from other agents. > > > > > > A major side-effect of this change is that stage-2 translation > > > contexts > > > are now affected by all invalidations by VMID. VMIDs are all shared > > > and > > > the only ways to prevent over-invalidation, since the stage-2 page > > > tables > > > are not shared between CPU and SMMU, are to either disable BTM or > > > allocate > > > different VMIDs. This patch does not address the problem. > > > > This sounds like a potential performance issue, particularly as we > > expose > > stage-2 contexts via VFIO directly. Yes it's certainly going to affect SMMU performance, though I haven't measured it. QEMU and kvmtool currently use stage-1 translations instead of stage-2, so it won't be a problem until they start using nested translation (and unless the SMMU only supports stage-2). In the coming month I'd like to have a look at coordinating VMID allocation between KVM and SMMU, for guest SVA. If the guest wants to share page tables with the SMMU, the SMMU has to use the same VMIDs as the VM to receive broadcast TLBI. Similarly to patch 06 ("arm64: mm: Pin down ASIDs for sharing mm with devices") the SMMU would request a VMID allocated by KVM, when setting up a nesting VFIO container. One major downside is that the VMID is pinned and cannot be recycled on rollover while it's being used for DMA. I wonder if we could use this even when page tables aren't shared between CPU and SMMU, to avoid splitting the VMID space. > > Maybe we could reserve some portion > > of > > VMID space for the SMMU? Marc, what do you reckon? > > Certainly doable when we have 16bits VMIDs. With smaller VMID spaces (like > on > v8.0), this is a bit more difficult (we do have pretty large v8.0 systems > around). It's only an issue if those systems have an SMMUv3 supporting DVM. With any luck that doesn't exist? > How many VMID bits are we talking about? That's anyone's guess... One passed-through device per VM would halve the VMID space. But the SMMU allocates one VMID for each device assigned to a guest, not one per VM (well one per domain, or VFIO container, but I think it boils down to one per device with QEMU). So with SR-IOV for example it should be pretty easy to reach 256 VMIDs in the SMMU. Thanks, Jean
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c index 7e1933e7e35f..9332253e3608 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ #define IDR0_ASID16 (1 << 12) #define IDR0_ATS (1 << 10) #define IDR0_HYP (1 << 9) +#define IDR0_BTM (1 << 5) #define IDR0_COHACC (1 << 4) #define IDR0_TTF GENMASK(3, 2) #define IDR0_TTF_AARCH64 2 @@ -658,6 +659,7 @@ struct arm_smmu_device { #define ARM_SMMU_FEAT_VAX (1 << 14) #define ARM_SMMU_FEAT_RANGE_INV (1 << 15) #define ARM_SMMU_FEAT_E2H (1 << 16) +#define ARM_SMMU_FEAT_BTM (1 << 17) u32 features; #define ARM_SMMU_OPT_SKIP_PREFETCH (1 << 0) @@ -3819,11 +3821,14 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool bypass) writel_relaxed(reg, smmu->base + ARM_SMMU_CR1); /* CR2 (random crap) */ - reg = CR2_PTM | CR2_RECINVSID; + reg = CR2_RECINVSID; if (smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_E2H) reg |= CR2_E2H; + if (!(smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_BTM)) + reg |= CR2_PTM; + writel_relaxed(reg, smmu->base + ARM_SMMU_CR2); /* Stream table */ @@ -3934,6 +3939,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_hw_probe(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu) { u32 reg; bool coherent = smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_COHERENCY; + bool vhe = cpus_have_cap(ARM64_HAS_VIRT_HOST_EXTN); /* IDR0 */ reg = readl_relaxed(smmu->base + ARM_SMMU_IDR0); @@ -3983,10 +3989,19 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_hw_probe(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu) if (reg & IDR0_HYP) { smmu->features |= ARM_SMMU_FEAT_HYP; - if (cpus_have_cap(ARM64_HAS_VIRT_HOST_EXTN)) + if (vhe) smmu->features |= ARM_SMMU_FEAT_E2H; } + /* + * If the CPU is using VHE, but the SMMU doesn't support it, the SMMU + * will create TLB entries for NH-EL1 world and will miss the + * broadcasted TLB invalidations that target EL2-E2H world. Don't enable + * BTM in that case. + */ + if (reg & IDR0_BTM && (!vhe || reg & IDR0_HYP)) + smmu->features |= ARM_SMMU_FEAT_BTM; + /* * The coherency feature as set by FW is used in preference to the ID * register, but warn on mismatch.
The SMMUv3 can handle invalidation targeted at TLB entries with shared ASIDs. If the implementation supports broadcast TLB maintenance, enable it and keep track of it in a feature bit. The SMMU will then be affected by inner-shareable TLB invalidations from other agents. A major side-effect of this change is that stage-2 translation contexts are now affected by all invalidations by VMID. VMIDs are all shared and the only ways to prevent over-invalidation, since the stage-2 page tables are not shared between CPU and SMMU, are to either disable BTM or allocate different VMIDs. This patch does not address the problem. Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org> --- drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)