Re: [PATCH 00/21] SMMU enablement for NXP LS1043A and LS1046A

On 20.09.2018 14:49, Robin Murphy wrote:

On 20/09/18 11:38, Laurentiu Tudor wrote:

quoted

On 19.09.2018 17:37, Robin Murphy wrote:

quoted

On 19/09/18 15:18, Laurentiu Tudor wrote:

quoted

Hi Robin,

On 19.09.2018 16:25, Robin Murphy wrote:

quoted

Hi Laurentiu,

On 19/09/18 13:35, laurentiu.tudor@nxp.com wrote:

quoted

From: Laurentiu Tudor <laurentiu.tudor@nxp.com>

This patch series adds SMMU support for NXP LS1043A and LS1046A chips
and consists mostly in important driver fixes and the required device
tree updates. It touches several subsystems and consists of three 
main
parts:
    - changes in soc/drivers/fsl/qbman drivers adding iommu 
mapping of
      reserved memory areas, fixes and defered probe support
    - changes in drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/dpaa_eth drivers
      consisting in misc dma mapping related fixes and probe ordering
    - addition of the actual arm smmu device tree node together with
      various adjustments to the device trees

Performance impact

       Running iperf benchmarks in a back-to-back setup (both sides
       having smmu enabled) on a 10GBps port show an important
       networking performance degradation of around %40 (9.48Gbps
       linerate vs 5.45Gbps). If you need performance but without
       SMMU support you can use "iommu.passthrough=1" to disable
       SMMU.

I should have said before - thanks for the numbers there as well. Always 
good to add another datapoint to my collection. If you're interested 
I've added SMMUv2 support to the "non-strict mode" series (of which I 
should be posting v8 soon), so it might be fun to see how well that 
works on MMU-500 in the real world.

Hmm, I think I gave those a try some weeks ago and vaguely remember that 
I did see improvements. Can't remember the numbers off the top of my 
head but I'll re-test with the latest spin and update the numbers.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

USB issue and workaround

       There's a problem with the usb controllers in these chips
       generating smaller, 40-bit wide dma addresses instead of the
48-bit
       supported at the smmu input. So you end up in a situation
where the
       smmu is mapped with 48-bit address translations, but the 
device
       generates transactions with clipped 40-bit addresses, thus 
smmu
       context faults are triggered. I encountered a similar
situation for
       mmc that I  managed to fix in software [1] however for USB I
did not
       find a proper place in the code to add a similar fix. The only
       workaround I found was to add this kernel parameter which
limits the
       usb dma to 32-bit size: "xhci-hcd.quirks=0x800000".
       This workaround if far from ideal, so any suggestions for a 
code
       based workaround in this area would be greatly appreciated.

If you have a nominally-64-bit device with a
narrower-than-the-main-interconnect link in front of it, that should
already be fixed in 4.19-rc by bus_dma_mask picking up DT dma-ranges,
provided the interconnect hierarchy can be described appropriately (or
at least massaged sufficiently to satisfy the binding), e.g.:

/ {
       ...

       soc {
           ranges;
           dma-ranges = <0 0 10000 0>;

           dev_48bit { ... };

           periph_bus {
               ranges;
               dma-ranges = <0 0 100 0>;

               dev_40bit { ... };
           };
       };
};

and if that fails to work as expected (except for PCI hosts where
handling dma-ranges properly still needs sorting out), please do 
let us
know ;)

Just to confirm, Is this [1] the change I was supposed to test?

Not quite - dma-ranges is only valid for nodes representing a bus, so
putting it directly in the USB device nodes doesn't work (FWIW that's
why PCI is broken, because the parser doesn't expect the
bus-as-leaf-node case). That's teh point of that intermediate simple-bus
node represented by "periph_bus" in my example (sorry, I should have put
compatibles in to make it clearer) - often that's actually true to life
(i.e. "soc" is something like a CCI and "periph_bus" is something like
an AXI NIC gluing a bunch of lower-bandwidth DMA masters to one of the
CCI ports) but at worst it's just a necessary evil to make the binding
happy (if it literally only represents the point-to-point link between
the device master port and interconnect slave port).

Quick update: so I adjusted to device tree according to your example and
it works so now I can get rid of that nasty kernel arg based workaround,
yey! :-)

Cool! In fact, judging by the block diagrams on the website, the "basic 
peripherals and interconnect" section hanging off the side of the CCI 
implies that probably is true to the real topology as I imagined, so it 
doesn't even count as a horrible hack :)

Indeed, on this chip there's a NoC lumping behind it several low-speed 
devices such as usb, sata, esdhc.

quoted

Thanks a lot, that was really helpful.

No problem. FWIW if you ever come to doing ACPI support for these SoCs, 
the equivalent is merely a case of setting the device memory address 
size limit field appropriately for all the named components.

Thanks, I'll keep this in mind. If i remember correctly, there are 
people over here working on UEFI + ACPI support for some LS chips but 
progress appears to be slow.

---
Best Regards, Laurentiu