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:   Sat, 14 Sep 2019 07:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:     Re: [PATCH RFC 11/14] arm64: Move the ASID allocator code in a separate file
In-Reply-To: <20190912140256.fwbutgmadpjbjnab@willie-the-truck>
CC:     guoren@kernel.org, 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@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@wdc.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        rppt@linux.ibm.com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@wdc.com>, julien.grall@arm.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
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
To:     will@kernel.org
Message-ID: <mhng-166dcd4f-9483-4aab-a83a-914d70ddb5a4@palmer-si-x1e>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (MHng)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 07:02:56 PDT (-0700), will@kernel.org wrote:
> 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.

Ya, we're a long way from figuring this out.