Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:02:56 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, julien.thierry@arm.com,
        aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, james.morse@arm.com,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, suzuki.poulose@arm.com,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup.Patel@wdc.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@wdc.com>,
        Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>, gary@garyguo.net,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        christoffer.dall@arm.com, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 11/14] arm64: Move the ASID allocator code in a
 separate file
Message-ID: <20190912140256.fwbutgmadpjbjnab@willie-the-truck>
References: <20190321163623.20219-12-julien.grall@arm.com>
 <0dfe120b-066a-2ac8-13bc-3f5a29e2caa3@arm.com>
 <CAJF2gTTXHHgDboaexdHA284y6kNZVSjLis5-Q2rDnXCxr4RSmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <c871a5ae-914f-a8bb-9474-1dcfec5d45bf@arm.com>
 <20190619091219.GB7767@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com>
 <CAJF2gTTmFq3yYa9UrdZRAFwJgC=KmKTe2_NFy_UZBUQovqQJPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190619123939.GF7767@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com>
 <CAJF2gTSiiiewTLwVAXvPLO7rTSUw1rg8VtFLzANdP2S2EEbTjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190624104006.lvm32nahemaqklxc@willie-the-truck>
 <CAJF2gTSC1sGgmiTCgzKUTdPyUZ3LG4H7N8YbMyWr-E+eifGuYg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJF2gTSC1sGgmiTCgzKUTdPyUZ3LG4H7N8YbMyWr-E+eifGuYg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Sep 08, 2019 at 07:52:55AM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 6:40 PM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > I'll keep my system use the same ASID for SMP + IOMMU :P
> >
> > You will want a separate allocator for that:
> >
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190610184714.6786-2-jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com
> 
> Yes, it is hard to maintain ASID between IOMMU and CPUMMU or different
> system, because it's difficult to synchronize the IO_ASID when the CPU
> ASID is rollover.
> But we could still use hardware broadcast TLB invalidation instruction
> to uniformly manage the ASID and IO_ASID, or OTHER_ASID in our IOMMU.

That's probably a bad idea, because you'll likely stall execution on the
CPU until the IOTLB has completed invalidation. In the case of ATS, I think
an endpoint ATC is permitted to take over a minute to respond. In reality, I
suspect the worst you'll ever see would be in the msec range, but that's
still an unacceptable period of time to hold a CPU.

> Welcome to join our disscusion:
> "Introduce an implementation of IOMMU in linux-riscv"
> 9 Sep 2019, 10:45 Jade-room-I&II (Corinthia Hotel Lisbon) RISC-V MC

I attended this session, but it unfortunately raised many more questions
than it answered.

Will