On 2018/8/9 16:49, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 09:30:51AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>> On 2018/8/8 18:12, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 08:31:29PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>>>> The condition "(int)(VAL - sync_idx) >= 0" to break loop in function
>>>> __arm_smmu_sync_poll_msi requires that sync_idx must be increased
>>>> monotonously according to the sequence of the CMDs in the cmdq.
>>>>
>>>> But ".msidata = atomic_inc_return_relaxed(&smmu->sync_nr)" is not protected
>>>> by spinlock, so the following scenarios may appear:
>>>> cpu0 cpu1
>>>> msidata=0
>>>> msidata=1
>>>> insert cmd1
>>>> insert cmd0
>>>> smmu execute cmd1
>>>> smmu execute cmd0
>>>> poll timeout, because msidata=1 is overridden by
>>>> cmd0, that means VAL=0, sync_idx=1.
>>>
>>> Oh yuck, you're right! We probably want a CC stable on this. Did you see
>>> this go wrong in practice?
>> Just misreported and make the caller wait for a long time until TIMEOUT. It's
>> rare to happen, because any other CMD_SYNC during the waiting period will
>> break
>> it.
>
> Thanks. Please mention that in the commit message, because I think it's
> useful to know.
OK.
>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 7 +++----
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>>> index 1d64710..4810f61 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>>> @@ -566,7 +566,7 @@ struct arm_smmu_device {
>>>>
>>>> int gerr_irq;
>>>> int combined_irq;
>>>> - atomic_t sync_nr;
>>>> + u32 sync_nr;
>>>>
>>>> unsigned long ias; /* IPA */
>>>> unsigned long oas; /* PA */
>>>> @@ -836,7 +836,6 @@ static int arm_smmu_cmdq_build_cmd(u64 *cmd, struct
>>>> arm_smmu_cmdq_ent *ent)
>>>> cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS,
>>>> CMDQ_SYNC_0_CS_SEV);
>>>> cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_MSH, ARM_SMMU_SH_ISH);
>>>> cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_MSIATTR,
>>>> ARM_SMMU_MEMATTR_OIWB);
>>>> - cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_MSIDATA, ent->sync.msidata);
>>>> cmd[1] |= ent->sync.msiaddr & CMDQ_SYNC_1_MSIADDR_MASK;
>>>> break;
>>>> default:
>>>> @@ -947,7 +946,6 @@ static int __arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_sync_msi(struct
>>>> arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>>> struct arm_smmu_cmdq_ent ent = {
>>>> .opcode = CMDQ_OP_CMD_SYNC,
>>>> .sync = {
>>>> - .msidata = atomic_inc_return_relaxed(&smmu->sync_nr),
>>>> .msiaddr = virt_to_phys(&smmu->sync_count),
>>>> },
>>>> };
>>>> @@ -955,6 +953,8 @@ static int __arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_sync_msi(struct
>>>> arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>>> arm_smmu_cmdq_build_cmd(cmd, &ent);
>>>>
>>>> spin_lock_irqsave(&smmu->cmdq.lock, flags);
>>>> + ent.sync.msidata = ++smmu->sync_nr;
>>>> + cmd[0] |= FIELD_PREP(CMDQ_SYNC_0_MSIDATA, ent.sync.msidata);
>>>
>>> I really don't like splitting this out from building the rest of the
>>> command. Can you just move the call to arm_smmu_cmdq_build_cmd into the
>>> critical section, please?
>> OK. I have considered that before, just worry it will increase the
>> compition of spinlock.
>
> If you can provide numbers showing that it's a problem, then we could add
> a helper function e.g. arm_smmu_cmdq_sync_set_msidata(arm_smmu_cmdq_ent *cmd)
The performance data from my current test envirnoment is not stable now, I'm
trying to find anothor one. So I want to leave this problem for the time being.
If it'a problem, I will send a new patch.
>
>> In addition, I will append a optimization patch: the adjacent CMD_SYNCs,
>> we only need one.
>
> Ok, but please keep them separate, since I don't want to fix up fixes and
> optimisations.
OK
>
> Thanks,
>
> Will
>
> .
>
--
Thanks!
BestRegards
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
