Hi,

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:42 PM, Tomasz Figa <tf...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Robin Murphy <robin.mur...@arm.com> wrote:
>> [sorry, I had intended to reply sooner but clearly forgot]
>>
>>
>> On 16/02/18 00:13, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:14 AM, Robin Murphy <robin.mur...@arm.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 15/02/18 04:17, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you elaborate on what kind of locking you are concerned about?
>>>>>> As I explained before, the normally happening fast path would lock
>>>>>> dev->power_lock only for the brief moment of incrementing the runtime
>>>>>> PM usage counter.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My bad, that's not even it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The atomic usage counter is incremented beforehands, without any
>>>>> locking [1] and the spinlock is acquired only for the sake of
>>>>> validating that device's runtime PM state remained valid indeed [2],
>>>>> which would be the case in the fast path of the same driver doing two
>>>>> mappings in parallel, with the master powered on (and so the SMMU,
>>>>> through device links; if master was not powered on already, powering
>>>>> on the SMMU is unavoidable anyway and it would add much more latency
>>>>> than the spinlock itself).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We now have no locking at all in the map path, and only a per-domain lock
>>>> around TLB sync in unmap which is unfortunately necessary for
>>>> correctness;
>>>> the latter isn't too terrible, since in "serious" hardware it should only
>>>> be
>>>> serialising a few cpus serving the same device against each other (e.g.
>>>> for
>>>> multiple queues on a single NIC).
>>>>
>>>> Putting in a global lock which serialises *all* concurrent map and unmap
>>>> calls for *all* unrelated devices makes things worse. Period. Even if the
>>>> lock itself were held for the minimum possible time, i.e. trivially
>>>> "spin_lock(&lock); spin_unlock(&lock)", the cost of repeatedly bouncing
>>>> that
>>>> one cache line around between 96 CPUs across two sockets is not
>>>> negligible.
>>>
>>>
>>> Fair enough. Note that we're in a quite interesting situation now:
>>>   a) We need to have runtime PM enabled on Qualcomm SoC to have power
>>> properly managed,
>>>   b) We need to have lock-free map/unmap on such distributed systems,
>>>   c) If runtime PM is enabled, we need to call into runtime PM from any
>>> code that does hardware accesses, otherwise the IOMMU API (and so DMA
>>> API and then any V4L2 driver) becomes unusable.
>>>
>>> I can see one more way that could potentially let us have all the
>>> three. How about enabling runtime PM only on selected implementations
>>> (e.g. qcom,smmu) and then having all the runtime PM calls surrounded
>>> with if (pm_runtime_enabled()), which is lockless?
>>
>>
>> Yes, that's the kind of thing I was gravitating towards - my vague thought
>> was adding some flag to the smmu_domain, but pm_runtime_enabled() does look
>> conceptually a lot cleaner.
>
> Great, thanks. Looks like we're in agreement now. \o/
>
> Vivek, does this sound reasonable to you?

Yea, sound good to me. I will respin the patches.

Thanks & Regards
Vivek

>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz



-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

Reply via email to