Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Wed, 6 Apr 2022 11:01:44 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.com>,
        Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
        "Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>,
        "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 03/11] iommu/sva: Add iommu_domain type for SVA
Message-ID: <20220406140144.GD2120790@nvidia.com>
References: <20220329053800.3049561-4-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <20220330190201.GB2120790@nvidia.com>
 <BN9PR11MB5276A39F481E2E31B0FCFEAE8CE39@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <20220402233210.GM2120790@nvidia.com>
 <BN9PR11MB527660D99D154F922B0A628B8CE79@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <20220406012334.GZ2120790@nvidia.com>
 <BN9PR11MB52764E3DE16E19D1F1515D008CE79@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <d0f6caea-0cd9-d839-c9fb-0fe49c2bad16@arm.com>
 <20220406130614.GC2120790@nvidia.com>
 <b7639218-2d10-fd71-0f4b-3af3f8fa224b@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b7639218-2d10-fd71-0f4b-3af3f8fa224b@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0: =?us-ascii?Q?/pm3d3X8D87CVeRh3HS9rvOtZ2GmS0aczeYSOarKE+VQgTqna2jk5LN9aK53?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?+4xRvxcjgU9QdftvL/41Ghv1HnYnfo8CLB5UGRzBnb2oLDU92GWgOjGw1472?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?HLj1M40r3skDeY8R8D4qOqxyv1pmJWj6g+hEPQrusS07VwdflzY3YfMSfq37?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?DFSxuZ87ufiBAdJlXk2OyZ22OsEtQyFIvQ6nBAjHQ9BQVIBYXu1YhuYbyZo6?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?LI+5e21SPBRaTLSfoiWdvh1PhDy6mVRDXoit3Y50K1GhJA97af4r15HLBmsM?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?sFtQ++YDcw27u1xWNUC9Evsk20PeF6fO4Etg7UDLrJ3EOItmSnYc8NWJT9nG?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?lV4+LMinVMowknu/zSHO6omNBPtcKLA4wYCXVHeZBfqOEYNkNOAf5sCTFPi2?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?4X6zl39lP7wD44bg8fZ4q4Ht9J1kgC+/IGKKupWEHOL5IeCKi61B/HWcuehW?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?6ZZZTZlMQMFwMVpS4fydzMVSmEGrpZEpuWM3fE5GLwL4GczwQJxoX5JpvLQI?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?vnklbWk8Jh/0PXrqa1RxE/RAa46gfaM5rLsckQgE+z7Q1xdFigkvR3s3Q3Uq?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?jBNJbggVZ26QX37CjNe9RpOimm5eXLXfvNiDQ+1LhSb3BVvNQdtpK+QBUmF+?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?CELiw/Cdv2MlSXkc4Im0Gjhcboj6YBhKEk0WkS0RupVDs4e+bufysNKmtEa/?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?jFvkWSXi2vdJTj3hA1M3dvQJUDQ40HwGb9qOilOO+HhVTUx9p08s5YtK8T44?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?rJCqBj7T0L2kG+SrONuUoDWeNiyrhA9LFHYTh45xWRfkGDHd1dsWUNKsA8vy?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?e4LwaQEo8MVOr/92VpaSml64eO9zcZ6TRW7oZOit40gH6KXPxSqj0MeoFUJG?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?4Ytot/sX5a0q/eg5rpHiUvzUY2wlV3IUdN2wVKI94W7ISg3xZA9y2JbksyF5?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?ner3y3UsGEKiFl2YQjJMQ0/lv7VGo3oyI/OeEPH30VCtQ6o4pMOtRa71fkxh?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?cbq4m5AMJi6JyO5h2ZWTbz3gqUyo4hSt/Btawr+87nidnZnrRkBBwhxJRSnJ?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?x478tNqd6NVAjvXjcygqrrHRCLa8E67TAdJfHUg0twUac6cPhqHiuCUNl+QR?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?aFJlCs2hVIYedkMPqhi18tDl5oXZsZHDZpPqzCzF1MQgdzdCztbLrYFhAzrE?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?mikoZa2RWkYJHIaQokCiyvUCx6dznZPUXdqFRC+3dCIZ9LBQFp4R3Wc3N5ui?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?B/CvwcBmjTQ+sZTj4JULstJN1+zMbW2eWcz7m1L3Cx8uJ2sxGuZY6xRPGHFW?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?TlGD0EBCEhkk3+0TqXY4wHdjtoaFfufMqB71WbU30JAIth4TcXZO4Zg/mtPO?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?28mfd0cxuskGiRes14qztuoW+Putl2K5fdtMfRBq4nUwvr5NP7+MB0FTPmxj?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?ykY1qFm5pU/eeLo8FLbMCAO60aaY20ypGtNCkniGMAWQvsTt1gtPP97XvhrC?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Ah1A/jpDU5iyduKuG3xXH3eovFb7CqgvsvFkUtmq3Usvzt5P4jOEEZhy7yf9?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?mKzBkOgMN2RXwxRdlxrm2Hdi9L8YsWveb6HaeP23njyboDDvizr4QtXoY1fx?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?rMiFiHgZGjHymVmhiOz/46Nwb2JZQfuXAl50O3huQs7TOrFFn9gJj4bu/+qy?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?7Zg4tJ+yYW/nHLa5gAGEhDp3VrlPFuTxR6+mrJ6T9q9GgLr2Uzk4GP80o6sr?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?AKyfBsh6Pg=3D=3D?=
X-OriginatorOrg: Nvidia.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 41368b38-ffca-4814-a3cd-08da17d5fc4c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MN2PR12MB4192.namprd12.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2022 14:01:45.5481
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: 1yPXeYD5nGVqu3vIlVZNNPrSa+fTzlrV9fUkbIUIRCj8wWcPgQpw804nI1jo3mrv
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY5PR12MB4967
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
	DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
	lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 02:37:40PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2022-04-06 14:06, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 01:32:07PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > a particular IOMMU instance, and potentially allocate separate domains for
> > > separate devices to represent the same address space, much like
> > > vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group() does.
> > 
> > I think this VFIO code also needs some more work, it currently assumes
> > that if the domain ops are the same then the domains are compatible,
> > and that is not true for ARM SMMU drivers.
> 
> Well, strictly it uses the ops as a "negative" heuristic that the domains
> are not definitely incompatible, and only then consolidates domains if
> cross-attaching actually succeeds. So I don't think it's really so bad.

Oh that is sneaky, I didn't appreciate that bit of logic..

> > I've been thinking of adding a domain callback 'can device attach' and
> > replacing the ops compare with that instead.
> 
> Previous comment notwithstanding, much as I do tend to prefer "just try the
> operation and see what happens" APIs, that might be more reliable in the
> long run than trying to encode specific "sorry, you'll need to allocate a
> separate domain for this device" vs. "this should have worked but something
> went wrong" semantics in the return value from attach.

Overall the way vfio is doing this has alot of overhead. Not only does
it create a domain it may not use it also does this:

			iommu_detach_group(domain->domain, group->iommu_group);
			if (!iommu_attach_group(d->domain,
						group->iommu_group)) {
				list_add(&group->next, &d->group_list);
				iommu_domain_free(domain->domain);
				kfree(domain);
				goto done;
			}

			ret = iommu_attach_group(domain->domain,
						 group->iommu_group);

So, if we already have a compatible domain VFIO does an extra domain
alloc/dealloc and 3 extra attach/detatches per domain it tests.

It is not very elegant at least..

> > > It's not really worth IOMMU drivers trying to support a domain spanning
> > > potentially-heterogeneous instances internally, since they can't reasonably
> > > know what matters in any particular situation.
> > 
> > In the long run I think it will be worth optimizing. If the SMMU
> > instances can share IOPTE memory then we get two wins - memory
> > reduction and reduced work to read dirty bits.
> > 
> > The dirty read in particular is very performance sensitive so if real
> > work loads have many SMMUs per VM it will become a pain point.
> 
> In the ideal case though, the SVA domains are only there to logically bridge
> between an existing process pagetable and IOMMU instances at the API level,
> right? Surely if we're shadowing physical pagetables for SVA we've basically
> already lost the performance game?

Sorry, I was not talking about SVA with that remark, speaking
generally about normal iommu_domains and sharing between SMMU
instances.

For SVA I see no issue with duplicating it per instance since it is
very small/etc - the only drawback is that the common code has to do
the 'can device attach' dance and keep a domain list per
mm-struct. Which seems OK to me.

Jason