Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Sender: saiprakash.ranjan=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date:   Wed, 16 Jun 2021 12:28:03 +0530
From:   Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc:     Krishna Reddy <vdumpa@nvidia.com>, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/io-pgtable-arm: Optimize partial walk flush for
 large scatter-gather list
In-Reply-To: <da62ff1c-9b49-34d3-69a1-1a674e4a30f7@arm.com>
References: <20210609145315.25750-1-saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
 <dbcd394a-4d85-316c-5dd0-033546a66132@arm.com>
 <c600e9b2534d54082a5272b508a7985f@codeaurora.org>
 <35bfd245-45e2-8083-b620-330d6dbd7bd7@arm.com>
 <12067ffb8243b220cf03e83aaac3e823@codeaurora.org>
 <266f190e-99ae-9175-cf13-7a77730af389@arm.com>
 <dfdabcdec99a4c6e3bf2b3c5eebe067f@codeaurora.org>
 <61c69d23-324a-85d7-2458-dfff8df9280b@arm.com>
 <BY5PR12MB37646698F37C00381EFF7C77B3349@BY5PR12MB3764.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <07001b4ed6c0a491eacce6e4dc13ab5e@codeaurora.org>
 <BY5PR12MB376480219C42E5FCE0FE0FFBB3349@BY5PR12MB3764.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <f749ba0957b516ab5f0ea57033d308c7@codeaurora.org>
 <BY5PR12MB376433B3FD0A59EF57C4522DB3319@BY5PR12MB3764.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <5eb5146ab51a8fe0b558680d479a26cd@codeaurora.org>
 <da62ff1c-9b49-34d3-69a1-1a674e4a30f7@arm.com>
Message-ID: <8535b6c757a5584b495f135f4377053c@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.9
Precedence: bulk

Hi Robin,

On 2021-06-15 19:23, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2021-06-15 12:51, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:

<snip>...

>> Hi @Robin, from these discussions it seems they are not ok with the 
>> change
>> for all SoC vendor implementations and do not have any data on such 
>> impact.
>> As I mentioned above, on QCOM platforms we do have several 
>> optimizations in HW
>> for TLBIs and would like to make use of it and reduce the unmap 
>> latency.
>> What do you think, should this be made implementation specific?
> 
> Yes, it sounds like there's enough uncertainty for now that this needs
> to be an opt-in feature. However, I still think that non-strict mode
> could use it generically, since that's all about over-invalidating to
> save time on individual unmaps - and relatively non-deterministic -
> already.
> 
> So maybe we have a second set of iommu_flush_ops, or just a flag
> somewhere to control the tlb_flush_walk functions internally, and the
> choice can be made in the iommu_get_dma_strict() test, but also forced
> on all the time by your init_context hook. What do you reckon?
> 

Sounds good to me. Since you mentioned non-strict mode using it 
generically,
can't we just set tlb_flush_all() in io_pgtable_tlb_flush_walk() like 
below
based on quirk so that we don't need to add any check in 
iommu_get_dma_strict()
and just force the new flush_ops in init_context hook?

if (iop->cfg.quirks & IO_PGTABLE_QUIRK_NON_STRICT) {
         iop->cfg.tlb->tlb_flush_all(iop->cookie);
         return;
}

Thanks,
Sai

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a 
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation