Re: [PATCH v8 07/12] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Share process page tables
From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Date: 2020-07-13 20:22:46
Also in:
linux-iommu, linux-mm
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 05:51:20PM +0200, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
With Shared Virtual Addressing (SVA), we need to mirror CPU TTBR, TCR, MAIR and ASIDs in SMMU contexts. Each SMMU has a single ASID space split into two sets, shared and private. Shared ASIDs correspond to those obtained from the arch ASID allocator, and private ASIDs are used for "classic" map/unmap DMA. A possible conflict happens when trying to use a shared ASID that has already been allocated for private use by the SMMU driver. This will be addressed in a later patch by replacing the private ASID. At the moment we return -EBUSY. Each mm_struct shared with the SMMU will have a single context descriptor. Add a refcount to keep track of this. It will be protected by the global SVA lock. Acked-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <redacted> --- drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 150 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 146 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c index 937aa1af428d5..cabd942e4cbf3 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ #include <linux/iommu.h> #include <linux/iopoll.h> #include <linux/module.h> +#include <linux/mmu_context.h> #include <linux/msi.h> #include <linux/of.h> #include <linux/of_address.h>@@ -33,6 +34,8 @@ #include <linux/amba/bus.h> +#include "io-pgtable-arm.h" + /* MMIO registers */ #define ARM_SMMU_IDR0 0x0 #define IDR0_ST_LVL GENMASK(28, 27)@@ -589,6 +592,9 @@ struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc { u64 ttbr; u64 tcr; u64 mair; + + refcount_t refs; + struct mm_struct *mm; }; struct arm_smmu_l1_ctx_desc {@@ -727,6 +733,7 @@ struct arm_smmu_option_prop { }; static DEFINE_XARRAY_ALLOC1(asid_xa); +static DEFINE_MUTEX(sva_lock); static struct arm_smmu_option_prop arm_smmu_options[] = { { ARM_SMMU_OPT_SKIP_PREFETCH, "hisilicon,broken-prefetch-cmd" },@@ -1662,7 +1669,8 @@ static int arm_smmu_write_ctx_desc(struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain, #ifdef __BIG_ENDIAN CTXDESC_CD_0_ENDI | #endif - CTXDESC_CD_0_R | CTXDESC_CD_0_A | CTXDESC_CD_0_ASET | + CTXDESC_CD_0_R | CTXDESC_CD_0_A | + (cd->mm ? 0 : CTXDESC_CD_0_ASET) | CTXDESC_CD_0_AA64 | FIELD_PREP(CTXDESC_CD_0_ASID, cd->asid) | CTXDESC_CD_0_V;@@ -1766,12 +1774,144 @@ static void arm_smmu_free_cd_tables(struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain) cdcfg->cdtab = NULL; } -static void arm_smmu_free_asid(struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc *cd) +static void arm_smmu_init_cd(struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc *cd) { + refcount_set(&cd->refs, 1); +} + +static bool arm_smmu_free_asid(struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc *cd) +{ + bool free; + struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc *old_cd; + if (!cd->asid) - return; + return false; + + free = refcount_dec_and_test(&cd->refs); + if (free) { + old_cd = xa_erase(&asid_xa, cd->asid); + WARN_ON(old_cd != cd); + } + return free; +} + +static struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc *arm_smmu_share_asid(u16 asid) +{ + struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc *cd; - xa_erase(&asid_xa, cd->asid); + cd = xa_load(&asid_xa, asid); + if (!cd) + return NULL; + + if (cd->mm) { + /* All devices bound to this mm use the same cd struct. */ + refcount_inc(&cd->refs); + return cd; + }
How do you handle racing against a concurrent arm_smmu_free_asid() here?
+__maybe_unused
+static struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc *arm_smmu_alloc_shared_cd(struct mm_struct *mm)
+{
+ u16 asid;
+ int ret = 0;
+ u64 tcr, par, reg;
+ struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc *cd;
+ struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc *old_cd = NULL;
+
+ lockdep_assert_held(&sva_lock);Please don't bother with these for static functions (but I can see the value in having them for functions with external callers).
+
+ asid = mm_context_get(mm);
+ if (!asid)
+ return ERR_PTR(-ESRCH);
+
+ cd = kzalloc(sizeof(*cd), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!cd) {
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ goto err_put_context;
+ }
+
+ arm_smmu_init_cd(cd);
+
+ old_cd = arm_smmu_share_asid(asid);
+ if (IS_ERR(old_cd)) {
+ ret = PTR_ERR(old_cd);
+ goto err_free_cd;
+ } else if (old_cd) {Don't need the 'else'
+ if (WARN_ON(old_cd->mm != mm)) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto err_free_cd;
+ }
+ kfree(cd);
+ mm_context_put(mm);
+ return old_cd;This is a bit messy. Can you consolidate the return path so that ret is a pointer and you have an 'int err', e.g.: return err < 0 ? ERR_PTR(err) : ret; Will _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel