Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.118.232 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.118.232; helo=mail.nvidia.com; pr=C
Date:   Fri, 17 Mar 2023 07:16:14 -0700
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>
CC:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        "jgg@nvidia.com" <jgg@nvidia.com>,
        "will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
        "eric.auger@redhat.com" <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        "baolu.lu@linux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
        "joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
        "shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com" 
        <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>,
        "jean-philippe@linaro.org" <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 14/14] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add
 arm_smmu_cache_invalidate_user
Message-ID: <ZBR2LvtXM1c1lDNS@Asurada-Nvidia>
References: <cover.1678348754.git.nicolinc@nvidia.com>
 <aa327f9ea61e5a4771c13e53639e33955b9acde3.1678348754.git.nicolinc@nvidia.com>
 <1467e666-1b6c-c285-3f79-f8e8b088718b@arm.com>
 <BN9PR11MB5276CC29BB979D6093CA91F48CBD9@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BN9PR11MB5276CC29BB979D6093CA91F48CBD9@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Mar 2023 14:16:19.2567
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 28606912-4630-40d7-bce3-08db26f22db4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.118.232];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM6NAM11FT093.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY5PR12MB4130
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 09:47:47AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> 
> 
> > From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 10:49 PM
> > > +   case CMDQ_OP_ATC_INV:
> > > +           ssid = inv_info->ssid;
> > > +           iova = inv_info->range.start;
> > > +           size = inv_info->range.last - inv_info->range.start + 1;
> > > +           break;
> >
> > Can we do any better than multiplying every single ATC_INV command, even
> > for random bogus StreamIDs, into multiple commands across every physical
> > device? In fact, I'm not entirely confident this isn't problematic, if
> > the guest wishes to send invalidations for one device specifically while
> > it's put some other device into a state where sending it a command would
> > do something bad. At the very least, it's liable to be confusing if the
> > guest sends a command for one StreamID but gets an error back for a
> > different one.
> >
> 
> Or do we need support this cmd at all?
> 
> For vt-d we always implicitly invalidate ATC following a iotlb invalidation
> request from userspace. Then vIOMMU just treats it as a nop in the
> virtual queue.
> 
> IMHO a sane iommu driver should always invalidate both iotlb and atc
> together. I'm not sure a valid usage where iotlb is invalidated while
> atc is left with some stale mappings.

vSMMU code in QEMU actually doesn't forward this command. So,
I guess that you are right about this support here and we may
just drop it.

Thanks!
Nic