On 2023-09-01 01:08, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> Hi Will/Robin,
>
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 10:39:15AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
>
>> Though I have not dig enough, I assume that this worst case could
>> happen to SVA too, since the IOTLB invalidation is from MMU code.
>> But the same worst case might not happen to non-SVA pathway, i.e.
>> TLBI ops for IO Page Table doesn't really benefit from this?
>>
>> With that being questioned, I got Robin's remarks that it wouldn't
>> be easy to decide the arbitrary number, so we could just take the
>> worst case from SVA pathway as the common threshold.
>>
>> Then, SVA uses the CPU page table, so perhaps we should highlight
>> that SMMU sets the threshold directly reusing the MAX_TLBI_OPS of
>> CPU page table rather than calculating from IO page table, though
>> both of them are in the same format?
>
> Our test team encountered a soft lockup in this path today:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#244 stuck for 26s!
That's a lot of TLBIs!
> pstate: 83400009 (Nzcv daif +PAN -UAO +TCO +DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
> pc : arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist+0x178/0xa50
> lr : arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist+0x150/0xa50
> sp : ffff8000d83ef290
> x29: ffff8000d83ef290 x28: 000000003b9aca00 x27: 0000000000000000
> x26: ffff8000d83ef3c0 x25: da86c0812194a0e8 x24: 0000000000000000
> x23: 0000000000000040 x22: ffff8000d83ef340 x21: ffff0000c63980c0
> x20: 0000000000000001 x19: ffff0000c6398080 x18: 0000000000000000
> x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000 x15: ffff3000b4a3bbb0
> x14: ffff3000b4a30888 x13: ffff3000b4a3cf60 x12: 0000000000000000
> x11: 0000000000000000 x10: 0000000000000000 x9 : ffffc08120e4d6bc
> x8 : 0000000000000000 x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 0000000000048cfa
> x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 : 0000000000000001 x3 : 000000000000000a
> x2 : 0000000080000000 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000001
> Call trace:
> arm_smmu_cmdq_issue_cmdlist+0x178/0xa50
> __arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range+0x118/0x254
> arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_asid+0x6c/0x130
> arm_smmu_mm_invalidate_range+0xa0/0xa4
> __mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end+0x88/0x120
> unmap_vmas+0x194/0x1e0
> unmap_region+0xb4/0x144
> do_mas_align_munmap+0x290/0x490
> do_mas_munmap+0xbc/0x124
> __vm_munmap+0xa8/0x19c
> __arm64_sys_munmap+0x28/0x50
> invoke_syscall+0x78/0x11c
> el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x58/0x1c0
> do_el0_svc+0x34/0x60
> el0_svc+0x2c/0xd4
> el0t_64_sync_handler+0x114/0x140
> el0t_64_sync+0x1a4/0x1a8
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I think it is the same problem that we fixed in tlbflush.h using
> MAX_TLBI_OPS. So, I plan to send a cleaner bug fix (cc stable):
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c
> index a5a63b1c947e..e3ea7d2a6308 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c
> @@ -186,6 +186,9 @@ static void arm_smmu_free_shared_cd(struct arm_smmu_ctx_desc *cd)
> }
> }
>
> +/* Copid from arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h to avoid similar soft lockups */
> +#define MAX_TLBI_OPS (1 << (PAGE_SHIFT - 3))
> +
> static void arm_smmu_mm_invalidate_range(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
> struct mm_struct *mm,
> unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> @@ -201,9 +204,14 @@ static void arm_smmu_mm_invalidate_range(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
> */
> size = end - start;
>
> - if (!(smmu_domain->smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_BTM))
> - arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_asid(start, size, smmu_mn->cd->asid,
> - PAGE_SIZE, false, smmu_domain);
> + if (!(smmu_domain->smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_BTM)) {
> + if (!(smmu_domain->smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_RANGE_INV) &&
> + size >= MAX_TLBI_OPS * PAGE_SIZE)
> + arm_smmu_tlb_inv_asid(smmu_domain->smmu, smmu_mn->cd->asid);
> + else
> + arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_asid(start, size, smmu_mn->cd->asid,
> + PAGE_SIZE, false, smmu_domain);
> + }
> arm_smmu_atc_inv_domain(smmu_domain, mm->pasid, start, size);
> }
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> What do you think about it?
Looks reasonable to me - I think it's the right shape to foreshadow the
bigger refactoring we discussed, and I can't object to using
PAGE_{SIZE,SHIFT} for the calculation when it's specifically in the
context of SVA.
Thanks,
Robin.
On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 07:02:19PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > Our test team encountered a soft lockup in this path today:
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#244 stuck for 26s!
>
> That's a lot of TLBIs!
Well, imagining the use cases of NVIDIA Grace, I'd expect it soon
to be no longer a surprise that we see more stressful cases :-/
> > I think it is the same problem that we fixed in tlbflush.h using
> > MAX_TLBI_OPS. So, I plan to send a cleaner bug fix (cc stable)
> > What do you think about it?
>
> Looks reasonable to me - I think it's the right shape to foreshadow the
> bigger refactoring we discussed,
Cool! Thanks for the quick ack. And I could move the MAX_TLBI_OPS
to the SMMU header so a later change in smmu.c can just use it.
> and I can't object to using
> PAGE_{SIZE,SHIFT} for the calculation when it's specifically in the
> context of SVA.
Yea, the current SVA code passes in PAGE_SIZE as the TLBI granule.
Thanks
Nic