On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 12:13:57PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

@@ -176,6 +177,24 @@ struct arm_smmu_cmdq *nvidia_grace_cmdqv_get_cmdq(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
        if (!FIELD_GET(VINTF_STATUS, vintf0->status))
                return &smmu->cmdq;

+     /* Check for supported CMDs if VINTF is owned by guest (not hypervisor) */
+     if (!FIELD_GET(VINTF_HYP_OWN, vintf0->cfg)) {
+             u64 opcode = (n) ? FIELD_GET(CMDQ_0_OP, cmds[0]) : CMDQ_OP_CMD_SYNC;

I'm not sure there was ever a conscious design decision that batches
only ever contain one type of command - if something needs to start

Hmm, I think that's a good catch -- as it could be a potential
bug here. Though the SMMUv3 driver currently seems to use loop
by adding one type of cmds to any batch and submitting it right
away so checking opcode of cmds[0] alone seems to be sufficient
at this moment, yet it might not be so in the future. We'd need
to apply certain constrains on the type of cmds in the batch in
SMMUv3 driver upon smmu->nvidia_grace_cmdqv, or fallback to the
SMMUv3's CMDQ pathway here if one of cmds is not supported.

quoted

depending on that behaviour then that dependency probably wants to be
clearly documented. Also, a sync on its own gets trapped to the main
cmdq but a sync on the end of a batch of TLBIs or ATCIs goes to the
VCMDQ, huh?

Yea...looks like an implication again where cmds must have SYNC
at the end of the batch. I will see if any simple change can be
done to fix these two. If you have suggestions for them, I would
love to hear too.

Can you explain the current logic here? It's not entirely clear to me
whether the VCMDQ is actually meant to support CMD_SYNC or not.

Yes. It's designed to take CMD_SYNC in same queue too. Though it
also has features, such as HW-inserted-SYNC when scheduler moves
away from the current queue or when the number of cmds in vcmdq
meets a MAX-BATCH-SIZE setting (in config register), yet it'd be
safer for software to ensure the CMD_SYNC is inserted to the end
of the batch.

OK, so the bug here is just that we're missing CMDQ_OP_CMD_SYNC from the
switch statement? That's reassuring at least. Having to trap to the host
to issue a sync would be horrible, and largely defeat the point of the
whole exercise.

Hmm..I'm not sure why we need CMD_SYNC in the switch statement.
I thought that you pointed out a potential corner case where a
batch could be submitted separately, e.g. Batch A {TLBI_NH_VAx2}
and then Batch B {CMD_SYNC}. Right now the SMMUv3 driver submits
all TLBI commands with sync=true, so we don't run into a problem
so far.

It's not generally much use to software to know that the hardware may or
may not have automatically inserted syncs at arbitrary points in the
timeline; certainly for our flow in Linux, which I don't think is
atypical, we need to know for sure that specific invalidation commands
have completed before we can safely reuse resources associated with the
invalidated translations, and the only way to guarantee that is to
explicitly observe the consumption of a CMD_SYNC from a later queue index.

Hmm, if I capture it correctly, for the potential issue that I
listed above, we could simply ensure each TLBI batch to contain
TLBI commands only and to have CMD_SYNC at the end.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+
+             /* List all supported CMDs for vintf->cmdq pathway */
+             switch (opcode) {
+             case CMDQ_OP_TLBI_NH_ASID:
+             case CMDQ_OP_TLBI_NH_VA:
+             case CMDQ_OP_TLBI_S12_VMALL:
+             case CMDQ_OP_TLBI_S2_IPA:

Fun! Can the guest invalidate any VMID it feels like, or is there some
additional magic on the host side that we're missing here?

Yes. VINTF has a register for SW to program VMID so that the HW
can replace VMIDs in the cmds in the VCMDQs of that VINTF with
the programmed VMID. That was the reason why we had numbers of
patches in v2 to route the VMID between guest and host.

quoted

quoted

+             case CMDQ_OP_ATC_INV:
+                     break;

Ditto for StreamID here.

Yes. StreamID works similarly by the HW: each VINTF provides us
16 pairs of MATCH+REPLACE registers to program host and guest's
StreamIDs. Our previous mdev implementation in v2 can be a good
reference code:
https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20210831101549.237151fa.alex.williamson@redhat.com/T/#m903a1b44935d9e0376439a0c63e832eb464fbaee (local)

Ah, sorry, I haven't had the bandwidth to dig back through all the
previous threads. Thanks for clarifying - I'm still not sure why any
notion of stage 2 would be exposed to guests at all, but at least ita

Do you mean, by "notion of stage 2", Host Stream IDs? The guest
wouldn't get those I think. They'll be trapped in the hypervisor
-- the user driver (QEMU CMDQV device model for example.)

I mean if it's emulated as a full SMMUv3 interface, IDR0.S2P=0. At the
moment it makes no sense for a guest to even *think* it can issue
TLBI_S2_IPA or TLBI_S12_VMALL. My understanding of the usage model for

Ah..that's true. We've listed those by following the supported
command list from HW team. There might be no use case to cover
those.

this is that we pick the Context Descriptor from guest memory via the
emulated Stream Table (or other mechanism like virtio-iommu) and plumb
it directly into the S1ContextPtr of the appropriate underlying physical
STE, on top of the host's S2 translation. I don't see how we could also

Yea. VCMDQs are supposed to do TLB invalidation only. All other
commands should be going through ioctls (VFIO or IOMMUFD). What
we currently use for verification is Nesting patches from Eric,
yet the TLB invalidation would run into the VCMDQ pathway, as a
hardware acceleration.

flatten an emulated S2 into either physical stage without having to go
back to the costly "trap all pagetable accesses" approach which would
obliterate the benefit of having a directly-assigned queue.

quoted

quoted

sounds like there's no functional concern here, other than constraining
the number of devices which can be assigned to a single VM, but I think
that falls into the bucket of information that userspace VMMs will have
to learn about this kind of direct IOMMU interface assignment anyway
(most importantly, the relationship of assigned devices to vIOMMUs
suddenly has to start reflecting the underlying physical topology).

We haven't started to think how to fit the best into the IOMMUFD
but we will be likely having some idea or test case in Jan.

quoted

Out of interest, would ATC_INV with an unmatched StreamID raise an error
or just be ignored? Particularly if the host gets a chance to handle a

Mismatched StreamID will be treated as an Illegal command. Yes,
there'd be an error.

quoted

GError and decide whether CMDQ_CONS.ERR is reported back to the guest or
not, there's scope to do some interesting things for functionality and
robustness.

Would love to learn more about your thoughts :)

Basically it's quite neat if we could present a virtual queue to the
guest as the vSMMU's main queue, such that any commands that the
hardware can't consume directly could be fixed up or emulated by the
host with the illusion that they're being consumed as normal. It does
push more complexity into the host, and a round trip via the GError
interrupt would be a bit less efficient than trapping synchronously on a
write to an emulated CMDQ_PROD for commands that *do* need emulating,
but conversely it means we could support any guest with only the most
basic understanding of SMMUv3.0, and could potentially be more robust

Wow...that's an interesting idea! So host kernel could have more
numbers of queues to serve those trapping IRQs, although I am not
sure if IRQs, over 64 interfaces and 128 queues, would overwhelm
the host ISR... Can threaded interrupts from the same IRQ number
be served at the same time on different CPU cores? If so, multi-
queue like VCMDQs and ECMDQ might take advantage of that.

Just one concern here: we'll need to support multi VCMDQs on the
guest level too. So using the vSMMU's main queue slot may not be
sufficient for CMDQV use cases.

overall. As I say, though, it depends entirely on the guest not being
able to observe an error unltil the host has decided not to fix up the
offending command.

Well, given that guest IRQs are raised by the user space driver,
I think we can have certain controls to support that.

quoted

Btw, I think we may continue the discussion on this PATCH-5 and
then to figure out ideal solutions for those potential bugs that
you commented so far, as this patch really is very introductory
to Guest support (we need more implementation based on IOMMUFD.)

For the first 4 patches, they could be separated. Do you see a
chance to get them applied first? They are in the mail list for
a while now. And we'd like to accelerate the progress of those
four changes first.

I can't speak for Will, but personally I'd consider them exactly the
same as the ECMDQ patches - it's good to have them out here, reviewed as
far as we reasonably can, and ready for people to experiment with as
soon as the real hardware turns up, but I don't see any benefit in
actually merging unproven complexity into mainline before then. Neither
patchset gives Linux any new functionality that it can't achieve already
with the regular cmdq, so there's nothing to gain until it's actually
demonstrable that we really are addressing the right bottlenecks in the
right manner to meaningfully improve real-world performance, but what we
have to lose is more effort spent ripping stuff out again if it turns
out to be no good. Even patches #1-#3 here fundamentally beg the
question of whether replicating the full heavyweight cmdq behaviour is
the right way to go.

OK...looks like we'd have to provide some solid perf data here
for host-kernel use of VCMDQs (PATCH 1-4), or to wait until we
have a full-stack support covering guest use cases too.

I appreciate you've probably got hardware validation teams on your back
wanting "the driver" to support every new feature right now for them to
exercise, but we just have to stand firm and tell them that's not how
upstream works :)

Well..I'd expect that they'll just push me back to do whatever
I can to get the job done lol

Thank you!
Nic

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel