From: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@oss.qualcomm.com>
To: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, maz@kernel.org,
will@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, steven.price@arm.com,
aneesh.kumar@kernel.org, oupton@kernel.org, gshan@redhat.com,
joey.gouly@arm.com, tabba@google.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com,
linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, gankulkarni@os.amperecomputing.com,
sdonthineni@nvidia.com, alpergun@google.com,
fj0570is@fujitsu.com, WeiLin.Chang@arm.com,
lpieralisi@kernel.org, enju.kohei@fujitsu.com,
sudeep.holla@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 4/7] firmware: arm_rmm: Add support for SRO
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 12:13:56 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260924121356.00000d4d@oss.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260924135201.850038-5-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
On Thu, 24 Sep 2026 14:51:58 +0100
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> wrote:
> From: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
>
> RMM v2.0 introduces the concept of "Stateful RMI Operations" (SRO). This
> means that an SMC can return with an operation still in progress. The
> host is expected to continue the operation until it reaches a conclusion
> (either success or failure). During this process the RMM can request
> additional memory ('donate') or hand memory back to the host
> ('reclaim'). The host can request an in progress operation is cancelled,
> but still continue the operation until it has completed (otherwise the
> incomplete operation may cause future RMM operations to fail).
>
> The SRO is tracked using a struct rmi_sro_state object which keeps track
> of any memory which has been allocated but not yet consumed by the RMM
> or reclaimed from the RMM. This allows the memory to be reused in a
> future request within the same operation. It will also permit an
> operation to be done in a context where memory allocation may be
> difficult (e.g. atomic context) with the option to abort the operation
> and retry the memory allocation outside of the atomic context. The
> memory stored in the struct rmi_sro_state object can then be reused on
> the subsequent attempt.
>
> Wrappers for SRO RMI commands are also provided here because they depend
> on the rmi_sro_execute() implementation added by this patch.
> Delegate/undelegate handles are also added here because they now use the
> SRO/stateful command infrastructure and are also used for the memory
> DONATE/RECLAIM flows.
>
> Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
> Co-developed-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Nice. Everything I spotted this time around is pretty trivial.
So assuming you'll clean up and bits that make sense to you for v20
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@oss.qualcomm.com>
> ---
> drivers/firmware/arm_rmm/rmi.c | 666 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/arm-rmi-cmds.h | 41 ++
> 2 files changed, 707 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_rmm/rmi.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_rmm/rmi.c
> index c9ea964fd9081..035f21d3f26b6 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_rmm/rmi.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_rmm/rmi.c
> +
> +int rmi_undelegate_range(phys_addr_t phys,
> + unsigned long size)
> +{
> + long ret = 0;
> + unsigned long top = phys + size;
> + unsigned long out_top;
> +
> + while (phys < top) {
> + ret = rmi_granule_range_undelegate(phys, top, &out_top);
> +
> + if (ret == RMI_SUCCESS) {
> + /* Buggy RMM ? Let the caller leak the pages */
> + if (WARN_ON(out_top <= phys))
> + return -ENXIO;
> + phys = out_top;
> + } else {
Similar to below, why not deal with error case first and reduce indent of
the good path.
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rmi_undelegate_range);
> +/*
> + * rmi_delegate_range: Delegate a physically contiguous range.
> + * We iterate over the range until we hit an error. So we may
> + * return an error, but with a partially delegated range. The
> + * caller must always look at the @out_phys to figure out, how
> + * much progress was made.
> + *
> + * @phys: Base of the physical address range
> + * @size: Size of the physical address range
> + * @out_phys: Top of the range that was completed. This is always
> + * valid, irrespective of the result.
> + *
> + * Returns RMI_SUCCESS on successful completion. Otherwise, returns
> + * the Linux error number or the RMI status code as described
> + * by the RMM spec for RMI_GRANULE_DELEGATE_RANGE or RMI_BLOCKED.
> + */
> +int rmi_delegate_range(phys_addr_t phys,
> + unsigned long size,
> + phys_addr_t *out_phys)
> +{
> + long ret = 0;
> + unsigned long top = phys + size;
> + unsigned long out_top;
> +
> + while (phys < top) {
> + ret = rmi_granule_range_delegate(phys, top, &out_top);
> +
> + if (ret == RMI_SUCCESS) {
My instinct here would be to flip this and have the error out of line given
it breaks anyway and that gives you smaller indent for that ocmment block.
if (ret != RMI_SUCCESS)
break;
/*
* Buggy RMM ? Let the caller handle the failure. We can't know
* how far the RMM delegated in this iteration, so we return
* the best known good limit. RMM can deal with granules
* already in "undelegated" in a given range. So, it is fine
* for the caller to try the range we return.
*/
if (WARN_ON...
> + /*
> + * Buggy RMM ? Let the caller handle the failure.
> + * We can't know how far the RMM delegated in this
> + * iteration, so we return the best known good limit.
> + * RMM can deal with granules already in "undelegated"
> + * in a given range. So, it is fine for the caller to
> + * try the range we return.
> + */
> + if (WARN_ON(out_top <= phys)) {
> + ret = -ENXIO;
> + break;
> + }
> + phys = out_top;
> + } else {
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + if (out_phys)
> + *out_phys = phys;
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rmi_delegate_range);
...
> +
> +static int rmi_sro_donate_noncontig(struct rmi_sro_state *sro,
> + unsigned long sro_handle,
> + unsigned long donatereq,
> + struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *out_regs,
> + gfp_t gfp)
> +{
...
> +
> + /* Gather the suitable entries to the end of the list */
> + i = 0;
> + while (i < addr_list_start && found < count) {
> + unsigned long entry = sro->addr_list[i];
> +
> + if (RMI_ADDR_RANGE_BLOCK_SIZE(entry) == block_size_fld &&
> + RMI_ADDR_RANGE_COUNT(entry) == 1 &&
> + RMI_ADDR_RANGE_STATE(entry) == state) {
> + addr_list_start--;
> + swap(sro->addr_list[addr_list_start],
> + sro->addr_list[i]);
> + found++;
> + /* Continue from the swapped in entry */
> + continue;
> + }
> + /* skip past the entry */
Bit random on comment capitalization. Have a quick final look through.
For instance I think this one is Skip to match Continue above.
> + i++;
> + }
...
> +
> +static int rmi_sro_reclaim(struct rmi_sro_state *sro,
> + unsigned long sro_handle,
> + struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *out_regs)
> +{
> + unsigned long capacity;
> +
> + /*
> + * We don't do a partial free of the entries. So for
> + * now free the entire address list as we prepare
> + * to reclaim more from the RMM.
Rewrap to use all that nice space up to 80 chars! I guess a refactoring
side effect.
> + */
> + if (rmi_sro_ensure_capacity(sro, 1))
> + rmi_sro_free(sro);
> +
> + capacity = RMI_MAX_ADDR_LIST - sro->addr_count;
> +
> + rmi_op_mem_reclaim(sro_handle,
> + virt_to_phys(&sro->addr_list[sro->addr_count]),
> + capacity, out_regs);
> +
> + /*
> + * RMI_OP_MEM_RECLAIM always return RMI_INCOMPLETE, except when the
> + * input parameters were invalid.
> + */
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(RMI_RESULT_STATUS(out_regs->a0) != RMI_INCOMPLETE))
> + return -EINVAL;
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(out_regs->a1 > capacity))
> + out_regs->a1 = capacity;
> +
> + sro->addr_count += out_regs->a1;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +long rmi_sro_memxfer_execute(struct rmi_sro_state *sro, gfp_t gfp)
> +{
> + struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *regs = &sro->regs;
> + bool cancelled = false;
> + unsigned long sro_handle;
> +
> + rmi_smccc_invoke(regs);
> +
> + sro_handle = regs->a1;
> + while (RMI_RESULT_STATUS(regs->a0) == RMI_INCOMPLETE) {
> + bool can_cancel = RMI_RESULT_CAN_CANCEL(regs->a0) == RMI_OP_CAN_CANCEL;
For a flag that is "can" or "cannot", do we need the RMI_OP_CAN_CANCEL (1) / RMI_OP_CANNOT_CANCEL (0)
defines? Doesn't feel like we'll ever get RMI_OP_UNKNOWN_IF_IT_CAN_CANCEL and I can't think
of any other more reasonable options that would justify needing the explicit field value
match.
To me
bool can_cancel = RMI_RESULT_CAN_CANCEL(regs->a0);
is obvious enough. I don't care that much though so up to you.
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + switch (RMI_RESULT_MEMREQ(regs->a0)) {
> + case RMI_OP_MEM_REQ_NONE:
> + rmi_op_continue(sro_handle, RMI_CONTINUE_KEEP_GOING,
> + regs);
> + break;
> + case RMI_OP_MEM_REQ_DONATE:
> + ret = rmi_sro_donate(sro, sro_handle, regs->a2, regs,
> + gfp);
> + break;
> + case RMI_OP_MEM_REQ_RECLAIM:
> + ret = rmi_sro_reclaim(sro, sro_handle, regs);
> + break;
> + default:
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> + ret = -ENXIO;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + if (ret) {
> + /*
> + * All memory donating SROs must be cancellable. So a
> + * failure in memory allocation shouldn't be an issue.
> + * However, if we encounter a random failure (e.g.,
> + * buggy RMM), don't loop forever, just give up.
> + */
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!can_cancel))
> + return ret;
> + /*
> + * If we have already cancelled, and came back here due
> + * to an error in MEMREQ, then there is no point
> + * in going in loops.
> + */
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cancelled))
> + break;
> + rmi_op_cancel(sro_handle, regs);
> + cancelled = true;
> +
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(RMI_RESULT_STATUS(regs->a0) != RMI_INCOMPLETE))
> + return ret;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + if (cancelled)
> + return -ECANCELED;
> +
> + return regs->a0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rmi_sro_memxfer_execute);
> +
> +/*
> + * rmi_sro_execute: Execute an RMI command that is Stateful but not memory
> + * tranfserring. Takes regs, filled with the FIDs and the arguments in place.
Spell check. Transferring. Also why does Stateful get a capital letter and
Memory Transferring does not. They seem to both be properties of the comman
so I'd expect some consistency.
> + *
> + * Returns :
> + * -ECANCELLED - If the operation had to be aborted and SRO was cancellable.
> + * Otherwise, returns the result of the RMI command.
> + */
> +long rmi_sro_execute(struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *regs)
> +{
> + bool cancelled = false;
> + unsigned long sro_handle = regs->a1;
> +
> + rmi_smccc_invoke(regs);
> +
> + sro_handle = regs->a1;
> + while (RMI_RESULT_STATUS(regs->a0) == RMI_INCOMPLETE) {
> + bool can_cancel = RMI_RESULT_CAN_CANCEL(regs->a0) == RMI_OP_CAN_CANCEL;
> +
> + switch (RMI_RESULT_MEMREQ(regs->a0)) {
> + case RMI_OP_MEM_REQ_NONE:
> + rmi_op_continue(sro_handle, RMI_CONTINUE_KEEP_GOING,
> + regs);
> + break;
> + default:
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> + if (!can_cancel)
> + return regs->a0;
> + /*
> + * We can't get here normally, but handle this anyway
> + * for a buggy RMM implementation.
> + */
> + if (cancelled)
> + return -ECANCELED;
> + rmi_op_cancel(sro_handle, regs);
> + cancelled = true;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + if (cancelled)
> + return -ECANCELED;
> +
> + return regs->a0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rmi_sro_execute);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-24 19:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-24 13:51 [PATCH v19 0/7] firmware: arm_rmm: Add RMM v2.0 base RMI support Suzuki K Poulose
2026-09-24 13:51 ` [PATCH v19 1/7] firmware: arm_rmm: Add SMC definitions for calling the RMM Suzuki K Poulose
2026-09-24 16:57 ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-09-24 17:05 ` Ackerley Tng
2026-09-24 13:51 ` [PATCH v19 2/7] firmware: arm_rmm: Check for RMI support at init Suzuki K Poulose
2026-09-24 16:58 ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-09-24 13:51 ` [PATCH v19 3/7] firmware: arm_rmm: Configure the RMM with the host's page size Suzuki K Poulose
2026-09-24 17:03 ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-09-24 13:51 ` [PATCH v19 4/7] firmware: arm_rmm: Add support for SRO Suzuki K Poulose
2026-09-24 19:13 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2026-09-24 13:51 ` [PATCH v19 5/7] firmware: arm_rmm: Activate the RMM Suzuki K Poulose
2026-09-24 13:52 ` [PATCH v19 6/7] firmware: arm_rmm: Ensure the RMM has GPT entries for memory Suzuki K Poulose
2026-09-24 13:52 ` [PATCH v19 7/7] firmware: arm_rmm: Add wrappers for Realm related RMI commands Suzuki K Poulose
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=20260924121356.00000d4d@oss.qualcomm.com \
--to=jonathan.cameron@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=WeiLin.Chang@arm.com \
--cc=alpergun@google.com \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=enju.kohei@fujitsu.com \
--cc=fj0570is@fujitsu.com \
--cc=gankulkarni@os.amperecomputing.com \
--cc=gshan@redhat.com \
--cc=joey.gouly@arm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-coco@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lpieralisi@kernel.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=oupton@kernel.org \
--cc=sdonthineni@nvidia.com \
--cc=steven.price@arm.com \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=tabba@google.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yuzenghui@huawei.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®