Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.117.161 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.117.161; helo=mail.nvidia.com; pr=C
Date:   Tue, 21 Mar 2023 22:14:44 -0700
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
CC:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>, <will@kernel.org>,
        <eric.auger@redhat.com>, <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>, <joro@8bytes.org>,
        <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>, <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 14/14] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add
 arm_smmu_cache_invalidate_user
Message-ID: <ZBqOxNuHWPuhNy5b@Asurada-Nvidia>
References: <c753c2a8-024d-5bef-8987-96582084991e@arm.com>
 <ZBOFcenanpRsGFzF@Asurada-Nvidia>
 <ZBe3kxRXf+VbKy+m@Asurada-Nvidia>
 <ZBhbmqprnux4q00i@nvidia.com>
 <ZBh7hSX5hdW4vxwh@Asurada-Nvidia>
 <ZBiDcYwxL7eV1EmQ@nvidia.com>
 <ZBiLSJvtY5UKDJ5l@Asurada-Nvidia>
 <ZBig0fN3l7LsUlQg@nvidia.com>
 <ZBjGPI29BE/puciv@Asurada-Nvidia>
 <ZBjauQlH3TYbZQ7P@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZBjauQlH3TYbZQ7P@nvidia.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2023 05:14:57.2433
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: cca81a6e-0db7-449a-df2e-08db2a946109
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.117.161];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BN8NAM11FT055.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: PH0PR12MB7814
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,
        DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FORGED_SPF_HELO,
        RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE,
        URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable 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 Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 07:14:17PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 01:46:52PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 03:07:13PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 09:35:20AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > You need to know what devices the vSID is targetting ang issues
> > > > > invalidations only for those devices.
> > > > 
> > > > I agree with that, yet cannot think of a solution to achieve
> > > > that out of vSID. QEMU code by means of emulating a physical
> > > > SMMU only reads the commands from the queue, without knowing
> > > > which device (vSID) actually sent these commands.
> > > 
> > > Huh?
> > > 
> > > CMD_ATC_INV has the SID
> > > 
> > > Other commands have the ASID.
> > > 
> > > You never need to cross an ASID to a SID or vice versa.
> > > 
> > > If the guest is aware of ATS it will issue CMD_ATC_INV with vSIDs, and
> > > the hypervisor just needs to convert vSID to pSID.
> > > 
> > > Otherwise vSID doesn't matter because it isn't used in the invalidation
> > > API and you are just handling ASIDs that only need the VM_ID scope
> > > applied.
> > 
> > Yea, I was thinking of your point (at the top) how we could
> > ensure if an invalidation is targeting a correct vSID. So,
> > that narrative was only about CMD_ATC_INV...
> > 
> > Actually, we don't forward CMD_ATC_INV in QEMU. In another
> > thread, Kevin also remarked whether we need to support that
> > in the host or not. And I plan to drop CMD_ATC_INV from the
> > list of cache_invalidate_user(), following his comments and
> > the QEMU situation. Our uAPI, either forwarding the commands
> > or a package of queue info, should be able to cover this in
> > the future whenever we think it's required.
> 
> Something has to generate CMD_ATC_INV.
>
> How do you plan to generate this from the hypervisor based on ASID
> invalidations?
>
> The hypervisor doesn't know what ASIDs are connected to what SIDs to
> generate the ATC?
> 
> Intel is different, they know what devices the vDID is connected to,
> so when they get a vDID invalidation they can elaborate it into a ATC
> invalidation. ARM doesn't have that information.

I see. Perhaps vSMMU still needs to forward CMD_ATC_INV. And,
as you suggested, it should go through a vSID sanity check by
the host handler. We can find the corresponding pSID to check
if the device is associated with the iommu_domain?

Thanks
Nic