mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Device address specific mapping of arm,mmu-500
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 13:44:19 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170531124418.GE9723@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7bd03bf8-71d5-a974-bea2-a38b4349c547@broadcom.com>

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:13:36PM -0700, Ray Jui wrote:
> I did a little more digging myself and I think I now understand what you
> meant by identity mapping, i.e., configuring the MMU-500 with 1:1 mapping
> between the DMA address and the IOVA address.
> 
> I think that should work. In the end, due to this MSI write parsing issue in
> our PCIe controller, the reason to use IOMMU is to allow the cache
> attributes (AxCACHE) of the MSI writes towards GICv3 ITS to be modified by
> the IOMMU to be device type, while leaving the rest of inbound reads/writes
> from/to DDR with more optimized cache attributes setting, to allow I/O
> coherency to be still enabled for the PCIe controller. In fact, the PCIe
> controller itself is fully capable of DMA to/from the full address space of
> our SoC including both DDR and any device memory.
> 
> The 1:1 mapping will still pose some translation overhead like you
> suggested; however, the overhead of allocating page tables and locking will
> be gone. This sounds like the best possible option I have currently.

It might end up being pretty invasive to work around a hardware bug, so
we'll have to see what it looks like. Ideally, we could just use the SMMU
for everything as-is and work on clawing back the lost performance (it
should be possible to get ~95% of the perf if we sort out the locking, which
we *are* working on).

> May I ask, how do I start to try to get this identity mapping to work as an
> experiment and proof of concept? Any pointer or advise is highly appreciated
> as you can see I'm not very experienced with this. I found Will recently
> added the IOMMU_DOMAIN_IDENTITY support to the arm-smmu driver. But I
> suppose that is to bypass the SMMU completely, instead of still going
> through the MMU with 1:1 translation. Is my understanding correct?

Yes, I don't think IOMMU_DOMAIN_IDENTITY is what you need because you
actally need per-page control of memory attributes.

Robin might have a better idea, but I think you'll have to hack dma-iommu.c
so that you can have a version of the DMA ops that:

  * Initialises the identity map (I guess as normal WB cacheable?)
  * Reserves and maps the MSI region appropriately
  * Just returns the physical address for the dma address for map requests
    (return error for the MSI region)
  * Does nothing for unmap requests

But my strong preference would be to fix the locking overhead from the
SMMU so that the perf hit is acceptable.

Will

  reply	other threads:[~2017-05-31 12:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-05-30  1:18 Ray Jui
2017-05-30 15:14 ` Will Deacon
2017-05-30 16:49   ` Ray Jui
2017-05-30 16:59     ` Marc Zyngier
2017-05-30 17:16       ` Ray Jui
2017-05-30 17:27         ` Marc Zyngier
2017-05-30 22:06           ` Ray Jui
2017-05-31  6:13             ` Ray Jui
2017-05-31 12:44               ` Will Deacon [this message]
2017-05-31 17:32                 ` Ray Jui
2017-06-05 18:03                   ` Ray Jui
2017-06-06 10:02                     ` Robin Murphy
2017-06-07  6:20                       ` Ray Jui
2017-05-30 17:27     ` Robin Murphy

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170531124418.GE9723@arm.com \
    --to=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=ray.jui@broadcom.com \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome