Re: [PATCH rc v1 1/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add ignored bits to fix STE update sequence
From: Nicolin Chen <hidden>
Date: 2025-12-07 04:37:38
Also in:
linux-iommu, lkml
On Sat, Dec 06, 2025 at 03:57:52PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
I think that supports more that we should do what Shuai suggested and keep used as-is.
Yes, that will be probably cleaner.
Then ignored should be adjusted by the used: Only if both used are 1 should the bit become ignored. Otherwise we can rely on which ever used is 0 to generate the hitless update.
Hmm, not sure why it has to be both used.
The unused_update is computed using cur_used, and the equation for
used_qword_diff is computed using target_used, either of which can
be affected by ignored bits, right?
E.g.
if cur_used[] includes ING bit, target_used doesn't:
// target must unset IGN bit, last equation isn't affected
if cur sets IGN bit
cur_used should exclude IGN bit
if cur unsets IGN bit
not affected
if cur_used[] doesn't include ignores, target_used does:
// cur must unset IGN bit, cur_used isn't affected
if target sets IGN bit:
last equation must exclude IGN bit on both sides
if target unsets IGN bit:
not affected
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -1109,6 +1118,7 @@ static u8 arm_smmu_entry_qword_diff(struct arm_smmu_entry_writer *writer, WARN_ON_ONCE(target[i] & ~target_used[i]); /* Bits can change because they are not currently being used */ + cur_used[i] &= ~ignored[i]; unused_update[i] = (entry[i] & cur_used[i]) | (target[i] & ~cur_used[i]);
If one of ignored bits is set in entry[i] but unset in target[i], the unused_update will first mask it away, resulting in an extra unnecessary update (though it's still hitless). So, I think this might be better: - cur_used[i] &= ~ignored[i]; + cur_unused[i] = ~cur_used[i] | ignored[i]; unused_update[i] = (entry[i] & cur_used[i]) | - (target[i] & ~cur_used[i]); + (target[i] & cur_unused[i]); Because cur_used includes ignored, the unused_update will retain the ignored bits from entry. On the other hand, having cur_unused will also retain the ignored bits from target. One more change that we need is at the last equation: - if ((unused_update[i] & target_used[i]) != target[i]) + if ((unused_update[i] & target_used[i] & ~ignored[i]) != + (target[i] & ~ignored[i])) Either side might have the ignored bits, so we have to suppress ignored on both sides, which is required in the similar routine in arm_smmu_entry_differs_in_used_bits() of the kunit code. With these additional changes, nesting sanity and kunit test are both passing. I will do a few more tests to make sure things are okay, before wrapping up the v2. Please let me know if all these make sense to you. Thanks Nicolin