mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc: <will@kernel.org>, <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@oss.qualcomm.com>,
	<joro@8bytes.org>, <bhelgaas@google.com>, <praan@google.com>,
	<kevin.tian@intel.com>, <kees@kernel.org>, <smostafa@google.com>,
	<baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
	Jean-Philippe Brucker <jpb@kernel.org>,
	Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	<skaestle@nvidia.com>, <mmarrid@nvidia.com>,
	<skolothumtho@nvidia.com>, <bbiber@nvidia.com>,
	<harsha.v@oss.qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/15] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Drain in-flight fault events on domain detach
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2026 15:33:06 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <arRTojIlWBOF57zO@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <179018862538.3334538.17643821143626392419.b4-review@b4>

On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 03:37:05PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > [ ... 73 lines skipped ... ]
> > +static int arm_smmu_wait_for_queue_drained(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
> > +					   struct arm_smmu_queue *q,
> > +					   bool until_empty)
> > +{
> 
> Nothing uses until_empty = false ?

This series (PRIQ/EVTQ) use until_empty=false.

> Is that for the power management series? How does it make sense?
> Shouldn't we already know the queue is not seeing new entries in that
> case?

The RPM series (CMDQ) uses until_empty=true, as it knows that there
are no new entries.

> > +	ktime_t timeout = ktime_add_us(ktime_get(), ARM_SMMU_POLL_TIMEOUT_US);
> > +	u32 cons, prod, pending;
> > +	u32 drained = 0;
> > +
> > +	might_sleep();
> > +
> > +	cons = readl_relaxed(q->cons_reg);
> > +	prod = readl_relaxed(q->prod_reg);
> > +	/* The exit target: the number of entries in the queue at entry */
> > +	pending = Q_DIFF(&q->llq, cons, prod);
> > +
> > +	while (true) {
> > +		u32 prev, undrained;
> > +		bool expired;
> > +
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Sample the deadline ahead of the queue state it judges, but
> > +		 * break only after the exit conditions below, so a queue that
> > +		 * drained during a long preemption still exits with a success.
> > +		 */
> > +		expired = ktime_compare(ktime_get(), timeout) > 0;
> > +
> > +		/* Accumulate the entries consumed since the last poll */
> > +		prev = cons;
> > +		cons = readl_relaxed(q->cons_reg);
> > +		drained += Q_DIFF(&q->llq, prev, cons);
> > +
> > +		prod = readl_relaxed(q->prod_reg);
> > +		undrained = Q_DIFF(&q->llq, cons, prod);
> 
> I'm not sure how this all can work, the queue is running on its own
> with some other CPU handling interrupts.
> 
> You can't do this sort of Q_DIFF math unless you've somehow guaranteed
> one side of the queue is stable for this logic. If both pointers are
> moving forward then the points pointers can progress and wrap without
> this noticing that happened. That will lock up.

One side of the queue (pointers) is actually stable. EVTQ/PRIQ uses
the snapshot mode (until_empty=false):

 * With @until_empty == false (for EVTQ/PRIQ), exit once "drained" reaches its
 * target: "pending" (i.e. prod0 - cons0, frozen at the entry time):
 *
 *   cons0                cons                 prod0         (prod)
 *     |<---- drained ---->|                     |             |
 *  ---+###################+=====================+=============+--->
 *     |<--------------- pending --------------->|


"cons0", "prod0", and "pending" are frozen/stable at the start; the
function only needs to track a moving "cons".


Arguably the other model for CMDQ (until_empty=true) does have two
moving pointers in theory:

 * With @until_empty == true (for CMDQ), exit once the queue is observed empty:
 *
 *   cons0                cons                                prod
 *     |                   |                                   |
 *  ---+###################+===================================+--->
 *                         |<--------- undrained==0? --------->|

But in its practical use case (RPM), as you pointed out, there would
not be new entries. IOW, its "prod" is fixed/stable; only "cons" is
moving.

> Can you just replace this whole function with:
> 
> static void arm_smmu_irq_thread_fence(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
> 				      unsigned int irq)
> {
> 	if (!irq)
> 		return;
> 	irq_wake_thread(irq, smmu);
> 	synchronize_irq(irq);
> }
> 
> ?
> 
> This forces the thread to run and waits for it to finish. Since the
> thread fully drains the queue at the moment it starts, that should be
> sufficient?

Ah, that seems legit to me. The point is to make sure no pending IRQ
on the HW queues, so everything is drained. And this likely suffices.

Yea, I will try that one!

> But I wonder if the point of this has been lost? Prior to calling the
> driver attach functions the core code already changes the xarray:
> 
> 	curr = xa_cmpxchg(&group->pasid_array, pasid, NULL,
> 			  XA_ZERO_ENTRY, GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> That immediately makes the threaded IRQ safe since it calls
> iommu_attach_handle_get() which now fails.

I am not sure about that. Looking at iommufd_hwpt_replace_device(),
there can be a old_handle != NULL, in which case the cmpxchg() would
not change the xarray?

> So all that is needed is to synchronize_irq() to make sure the irq
> thread sees the xa update
> 
> Then to flush the workqueue that iommu_report_device_fault() pushes
> into.
> 
> We don't need to do anything with the HW queue.

FWIW, the idea of HW drain came from intel_iommu_drain_pasid_prq()..

Nicolin

  reply	other threads:[~2026-09-23 22:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-15 16:38 [PATCH v5 00/15] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add PRI support Nicolin Chen
2026-09-15 16:38 ` [PATCH v5 01/15] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Disable the impl before disabling the SMMU on shutdown Nicolin Chen
2026-09-23 18:37   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-15 16:38 ` [PATCH v5 02/15] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add arm_smmu_attach_release() Nicolin Chen
2026-09-23 18:37   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-15 16:38 ` [PATCH v5 03/15] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add Q_POS() macro Nicolin Chen
2026-09-15 23:19   ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-09-15 16:38 ` [PATCH v5 04/15] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Drain in-flight fault events on domain detach Nicolin Chen
2026-09-23 18:37   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-23 22:33     ` Nicolin Chen [this message]
2026-09-23 23:39       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-24  1:42         ` Nicolin Chen
2026-09-24 14:03           ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-15 16:38 ` [PATCH v5 05/15] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Flush in-flight fault work " Nicolin Chen
2026-09-23 18:37   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-15 16:38 ` [PATCH v5 06/15] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Allocate IOPF queue without FEAT_SVA Nicolin Chen
2026-09-23 18:37   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-15 16:38 ` [PATCH v5 07/15] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Submit CMDQ_OP_PRI_RESP for IOPF event Nicolin Chen
2026-09-23 18:37   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-15 16:38 ` [PATCH v5 08/15] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Disable the queue IRQs before disabling the SMMU Nicolin Chen
2026-09-15 23:21   ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-09-23 18:37   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-24  1:12     ` Nicolin Chen
2026-09-15 16:38 ` [PATCH v5 09/15] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Disable PRI when no IRQ handler is registered Nicolin Chen
2026-09-23 18:37   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-15 16:38 ` [PATCH v5 10/15] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Support PRI Page Request in arm_smmu_handle_ppr() Nicolin Chen
2026-09-15 23:22   ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-09-23 18:37   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-15 16:38 ` [PATCH v5 11/15] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Discard partial PRI faults on PRIQ overflow Nicolin Chen
2026-09-23 18:37   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-15 16:38 ` [PATCH v5 12/15] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Allocate IOPF queue for ARM_SMMU_FEAT_PRI Nicolin Chen
2026-09-23 18:37   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-15 16:38 ` [PATCH v5 13/15] PCI/ATS: Add PRI stubs Nicolin Chen
2026-09-23 18:37   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-15 16:38 ` [PATCH v5 14/15] PCI/ATS: Export pci_enable_pri() and pci_reset_pri() Nicolin Chen
2026-09-23 18:37   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-09-15 16:38 ` [PATCH v5 15/15] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Enable PRI for PCI device in arm_smmu_probe_device() Nicolin Chen

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=arRTojIlWBOF57zO@nvidia.com \
    --to=nicolinc@nvidia.com \
    --cc=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=bbiber@nvidia.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=eric.auger@redhat.com \
    --cc=harsha.v@oss.qualcomm.com \
    --cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=jgg@nvidia.com \
    --cc=jonathan.cameron@oss.qualcomm.com \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=jpb@kernel.org \
    --cc=kees@kernel.org \
    --cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mmarrid@nvidia.com \
    --cc=praan@google.com \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=skaestle@nvidia.com \
    --cc=skolothumtho@nvidia.com \
    --cc=smostafa@google.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /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®