On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 3:23 PM Auger Eric <eric.au...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > On 1/16/20 5:57 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:33 AM Auger Eric <eric.au...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Rob, > >> > >> On 1/15/20 3:02 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 3:21 AM Auger Eric <eric.au...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Rob, > >>>> > >>>> On 1/13/20 3:39 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > >>>>> Arm SMMUv3.2 adds support for TLB range invalidate operations. > >>>>> Support for range invalidate is determined by the RIL bit in the IDR3 > >>>>> register. > >>>>> > >>>>> The range invalidate is in units of the leaf page size and operates on > >>>>> 1-32 chunks of a power of 2 multiple pages. First we determine from the > >>>>> size what power of 2 multiple we can use and then adjust the granule to > >>>>> 32x that size. > > > >>>>> @@ -2022,12 +2043,39 @@ static void arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range(unsigned > >>>>> long iova, size_t size, > >>>>> cmd.tlbi.vmid = smmu_domain->s2_cfg.vmid; > >>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> + if (smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_RANGE_INV) { > >>>>> + unsigned long tg, scale; > >>>>> + > >>>>> + /* Get the leaf page size */ > >>>>> + tg = __ffs(smmu_domain->domain.pgsize_bitmap); > >>>> it is unclear to me why you can't set tg with the granule parameter. > >>> > >>> granule could be 2MB sections if THP is enabled, right? > >> > >> Ah OK I thought it was a page size and not a block size. > >> > >> I requested this feature a long time ago for virtual SMMUv3. With > >> DPDK/VFIO the guest was sending page TLB invalidation for each page > >> (granule=4K or 64K) part of the hugepage buffer and those were trapped > >> by the VMM. This stalled qemu. > > > > I did some more testing to make sure THP is enabled, but haven't been > > able to get granule to be anything but 4K. I only have the Fast Model > > with AHCI on PCI to test this with. Maybe I'm hitting some place where > > THPs aren't supported yet. > > > >>>>> + /* Determine the power of 2 multiple number of pages */ > >>>>> + scale = __ffs(size / (1UL << tg)); > >>>>> + cmd.tlbi.scale = scale; > >>>>> + > >>>>> + cmd.tlbi.num = CMDQ_TLBI_RANGE_NUM_MAX - 1; > >>>> Also could you explain why you use CMDQ_TLBI_RANGE_NUM_MAX. > >>> > >>> How's this: > >>> /* The invalidation loop defaults to the maximum range */ > >> I would have expected num=0 directly. Don't we invalidate the &size in > >> one shot as 2^scale * pages of granularity @tg? I fail to understand > >> when NUM > 0. > > > > NUM is > 0 anytime size is not a power of 2. For example, if size is > > 33 pages, then it takes 2 loops doing 32 pages and then 1 page. If > > size is 34 pages, then NUM is (17-1) and SCALE is 1. > OK I get it now. I misread the scale computation as log2() :-(. > > I still have a doubt about the scale choice. What if you invalidate a > large number of pages such as 1025 pages. scale is 0 and you end up with > 32 * 32 * 2^0 + 1 * 2 * 2^0 invalidations (33). Whereas you could > invalidate the whole range with 2 invalidation commands: 1 x 2^10 + > 1*1^1 (packing the invalidations by largest scale). Am I correct or do I > still miss something?
No, that's correct. 33 is a lot better than 1025 though. :) 1023 pages is about the worst case if we assume we get 2MB blocks, but maybe not a good assumption given our testing so far... So thinking out loud, I guess we could iterate on power of 2 chunks of size (in units of pages) like this: while (size) { scale = fls(size); range = 1 << scale; size &= ~range; iova += range; } But that means NUM is always 0, so also not ideal. So we need to extract 5 bits from size for NUM on each iteration: while (size) { scale = __ffs(size); num = (size >> scale)) & 0x1f; size -= (num + 1) * (1 << scale); ... } So worst case, we'd have 4 invalidates for up to 4G. > Besides in the patch I think in the while loop the iova should be > incremented with the actual number of invalidated bytes and not the max > sized granule variable. Ok. Rob _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu