On 2019/8/15 23:23, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 01:44:39PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> When (smmu_domain->smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_ATS) is true, even if a
>> smmu domain does not contain any ats master, the operations of
>> arm_smmu_atc_inv_to_cmd() and lock protection in arm_smmu_atc_inv_domain()
>> are always executed. This will impact performance, especially in
>> multi-core and stress scenarios. For my FIO test scenario, about 8%
>> performance reduced.
>>
>> In fact, we can use a struct member to record how many ats masters that
>> the smmu contains. And check that without traverse the list and check all
>> masters one by one in the lock protection.
>>
>> Fixes: 9ce27afc0830 ("iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add support for PCI ATS")
>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leiz...@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> index 29056d9bb12aa01..154334d3310c9b8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> @@ -631,6 +631,7 @@ struct arm_smmu_domain {
>>
>> struct io_pgtable_ops *pgtbl_ops;
>> bool non_strict;
>> + int nr_ats_masters;
>>
>> enum arm_smmu_domain_stage stage;
>> union {
>> @@ -1531,7 +1532,16 @@ static int arm_smmu_atc_inv_domain(struct
>> arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain,
>> struct arm_smmu_cmdq_ent cmd;
>> struct arm_smmu_master *master;
>>
>> - if (!(smmu_domain->smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_ATS))
>> + /*
>> + * The protectiom of spinlock(&iommu_domain->devices_lock) is omitted.
>> + * Because for a given master, its map/unmap operations should only be
>> + * happened after it has been attached and before it has been detached.
>> + * So that, if at least one master need to be atc invalidated, the
>> + * value of smmu_domain->nr_ats_masters can not be zero.
>> + *
>> + * This can alleviate performance loss in multi-core scenarios.
>> + */
>
> I find this reasoning pretty dubious, since I think you're assuming that
> an endpoint cannot issue speculative ATS translation requests once its
> ATS capability is enabled. That said, I think it also means we should enable
> ATS in the STE *before* enabling it in the endpoint -- the current logic
> looks like it's the wrong way round to me (including in detach()).
>
> Anyway, these speculative translations could race with a concurrent unmap()
> call and end up with the ATC containing translations for unmapped pages,
> which I think we should try to avoid.
>
> Did the RCU approach not work out? You could use an rwlock instead as a
> temporary bodge if the performance doesn't hurt too much.
OK, I will try rwlock first, this does not change the original code logic.
>
> Alternatively... maybe we could change the attach flow to do something
> like:
>
> enable_ats_in_ste(master);
> enable_ats_at_pcie_endpoint(master);
> spin_lock(devices_lock)
> add_to_device_list(master);
> nr_ats_masters++;
> spin_unlock(devices_lock);
> invalidate_atc(master);
>
> in which case, the concurrent unmapper will be doing something like:
>
> issue_tlbi();
> smp_mb();
> if (READ_ONCE(nr_ats_masters)) {
> ...
> }
>
> and I *think* that means that either the unmapper will see the
> nr_ats_masters update and perform the invalidation, or they'll miss
> the update but the attach will invalidate the ATC /after/ the TLBI
> in the command queue.
>
> Also, John's idea of converting this stuff over to my command batching
> mechanism should help a lot if we can defer this to sync time using the
> gather structure. Maybe an rwlock would be alright for that. Dunno.
>
> Will
>
> .
>
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
