Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:2 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:2;
Date:   Wed, 6 Dec 2023 16:18:05 +0100
From:   Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, ankita@nvidia.com,
        Shameerali Kolothum Thodi 
        <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>, oliver.upton@linux.dev,
        suzuki.poulose@arm.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com, will@kernel.org,
        ardb@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, gshan@redhat.com,
        aniketa@nvidia.com, cjia@nvidia.com, kwankhede@nvidia.com,
        targupta@nvidia.com, vsethi@nvidia.com, acurrid@nvidia.com,
        apopple@nvidia.com, jhubbard@nvidia.com, danw@nvidia.com,
        mochs@nvidia.com, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] KVM: arm64: allow the VM to select DEVICE_* and
 NORMAL_NC for IO memory
Message-ID: <ZXCQrTbf6q0BIhSw@lpieralisi>
References: <20231205033015.10044-1-ankita@nvidia.com>
 <86fs0hatt3.wl-maz@kernel.org>
 <ZW8MP2tDt4_9ROBz@arm.com>
 <20231205130517.GD2692119@nvidia.com>
 <ZW9OSe8Z9gAmM7My@arm.com>
 <20231205164318.GG2692119@nvidia.com>
 <ZW949Tl3VmQfPk0L@arm.com>
 <20231205194822.GL2692119@nvidia.com>
 <ZXCJ3pVbKuHJ3LTz@arm.com>
 <20231206150556.GQ2692119@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231206150556.GQ2692119@nvidia.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 11:05:56AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 02:49:02PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 03:48:22PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 07:24:37PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 12:43:18PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > > What if we change vfio-pci to use pgprot_device() like it already
> > > > > really should and say the pgprot_noncached() is enforced as
> > > > > DEVICE_nGnRnE and pgprot_device() may be DEVICE_nGnRE or NORMAL_NC?
> > > > > Would that be acceptable?
> > > > 
> > > > pgprot_device() needs to stay as Device, otherwise you'd get speculative
> > > > reads with potential side-effects.
> > > 
> > > I do not mean to change pgprot_device() I mean to detect the
> > > difference via pgprot_device() vs pgprot_noncached(). They put a
> > > different value in the PTE that we can sense. It is very hacky.
> > 
> > Ah, ok, it does look hacky though (as is the alternative of coming up
> > with a new specific pgprot_*() that KVM can treat differently).
> > 
> > BTW, on those Mellanox devices that require different attributes within
> > a BAR, do they have a problem with speculative reads causing
> > side-effects? 
> 
> Yes. We definitely have had that problem in the past on older
> devices. VFIO must map the BAR using pgprot_device/noncached() into
> the VMM, no other choice is functionally OK.

Were those BARs tagged as prefetchable or non-prefetchable ? I assume the
latter but please let me know if I am guessing wrong.

Thanks,
Lorenzo