Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-20417-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <7c83d666-beef-4c4c-935b-2e8df1968561@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 14:00:14 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] iommufd: Add data structure for Intel VT-d stage-1
 cache invalidation
Content-Language: en-US
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
CC: "joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>, "alex.williamson@redhat.com"
	<alex.williamson@redhat.com>, "robin.murphy@arm.com" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	"baolu.lu@linux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>, "cohuck@redhat.com"
	<cohuck@redhat.com>, "eric.auger@redhat.com" <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
	"nicolinc@nvidia.com" <nicolinc@nvidia.com>, "kvm@vger.kernel.org"
	<kvm@vger.kernel.org>, "mjrosato@linux.ibm.com" <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>,
	"chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com" <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>,
	"yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com" <yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com>, "peterx@redhat.com"
	<peterx@redhat.com>, "jasowang@redhat.com" <jasowang@redhat.com>,
	"shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com"
	<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>, "lulu@redhat.com" <lulu@redhat.com>,
	"suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
	"iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, "Duan,
 Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>, "joao.m.martins@oracle.com"
	<joao.m.martins@oracle.com>, "Zeng, Xin" <xin.zeng@intel.com>, "Zhao, Yan Y"
	<yan.y.zhao@intel.com>
References: <20231117131816.24359-1-yi.l.liu@intel.com>
 <20231117131816.24359-2-yi.l.liu@intel.com>
 <c967e716-9112-4d1a-b6f7-9a005e28202d@intel.com>
 <20240104143658.GX50406@nvidia.com>
 <BN9PR11MB52769EEDAE2783426144E2588C662@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <20240105144516.GC50406@nvidia.com>
 <BN9PR11MB52765C91893A28A7D21D324E8C6B2@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN9PR11MB52765C91893A28A7D21D324E8C6B2@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0: =?utf-8?B?MkFpZUw0b2hLZXJIY24zTVdlclhxZTgzT3lndGh4MXJTU0NNdGw3T005dHh4?=
 =?utf-8?B?ZmpUNGR1NTlnb0tjREMxVTk5MkVNeDBPSmtTNWdoR2svYTRXYW5JMEExYXEy?=
 =?utf-8?B?SFN3MlgxQWJhTnRFYjhrSlNwU0NMU0J6Nk9jSG1xMmt2aThrakFyQTZlTTlJ?=
 =?utf-8?B?ZzJhdG5qMXlHTUVrVEN5cUR1WDllVEZTQ3J0TGxNTmYxMittZ1R5d0lubnNy?=
 =?utf-8?B?aVhSMzd0N0VVYzZidGk5dzNmbzFxYk9QTnJHOWtpOGg1Zy8xMmtmNmNFOG9m?=
 =?utf-8?B?OHdBRi9Rb3JrZzA3b21paytsbk10a21EY1dqODZIYlF4Y1EwMDEwWFEvT2tW?=
 =?utf-8?B?MForUFc2V29VTlY1eVpOS0lrdzBzZWZBNmJIdVF0K2FQQWtKTWlmb0oxS1Rh?=
 =?utf-8?B?aG1VTVZvVVNTTFRtN2NEbWs0QjhUZHVtLzlhUFVvMU1iS09NZlpXSGN0L0pv?=
 =?utf-8?B?Y1c2MmxzTFZaTU5kc2xTRkxoUENrQkJPYzRFSjBpQVl6K2hXb0NWY3JHeWgy?=
 =?utf-8?B?TXRtdC9scFBDN3JMMG5FSy9UTVV2OEUvNE1OcmRlNkFqUkNaMUhSMEt6NXh0?=
 =?utf-8?B?Z0Z6VHFqeXFPR0RRTS9jUmE5bk1KbHdkNHk5bms2cGVWNzBTam1NWHBzaU1r?=
 =?utf-8?B?VmZMWjNsMkMwOGY1bEpNeWtBd1dONlZSK09jYnlZNTVSWElaK3h2VzA4MHMz?=
 =?utf-8?B?SFNnY0RyNG5kSmNXU3A4VllVY0FhMnNnM0tCOG5IVFJ4UlVqaS9GeXkzTjdn?=
 =?utf-8?B?cmd0SG91aEZkNjBqNjJPUGpEUC92d2hhbmp6ZjRBWkhSZ01oMlNwS0htcVkr?=
 =?utf-8?B?dis5c3pjYU10amROUk54ZHZvQjR3R2xjbDJPV2ZvSU5KVDN6Ri9tQlBESlI4?=
 =?utf-8?B?ek9JY0didFhGQTdpZ1NqUjBZYWpUZXVOamNhRTJxOXRPcDUxOHNOcmtmeGNs?=
 =?utf-8?B?K3Z6ZDJxTCtzR2FCYkt4MEpoVld0TXMzNGV5YUo3VkJJc2ppRWIwZnhUdlph?=
 =?utf-8?B?am9MajR3U0JTUGJ2VFNaV1FzbDdkM1o0YVhlRW90SXc0TmY2RHkyL2V5Kzgw?=
 =?utf-8?B?UHczM2dNT0VUTHdPSlV4MzNhY2Q4Nk83UWliWWw3bkp0K1RKR3JkNkRDdGNX?=
 =?utf-8?B?ZUVYK0Z5TXNmMlRlOWNIT2x3RE5pdktXcncva3Z5eXVqN0tyOWM1SVdWOFFo?=
 =?utf-8?B?RDBrTVNOQXV0N2dUR1ZxSzJoRWxwOVI3S3NDQ01hRi9yUDFBcllWbHRKZDBI?=
 =?utf-8?B?TjFzTWdyek9PREV0WlJjZ1M4Q2RBNEphbml1N1Z1c3ZXSU9GTlkrL0lydHZB?=
 =?utf-8?B?T213bkNnL0EvYlV6QmtuTFVFL1JQUGtldVhna3BaZmZLMlk5akxkOVIybVpM?=
 =?utf-8?B?QmJZSTgvMEd3WFVxZWU2K21YQXJPWGwyREpkZHdZM1NZVVRMZHQzUXkzKzEy?=
 =?utf-8?B?ZFQzR2d3UkFQWnVxZXF2VmlQRHRRZGFESndacEVvZEtjbnB5ZE5VMkNXeHZS?=
 =?utf-8?B?c3lER1NpY0lrdVg3YzZVN3dMU0NHKzR1OGh1L29FSUpCc1A0bEwyWWpZMkh2?=
 =?utf-8?B?WG5sK3lkVFZud2I3T01rMXZIMXpHTzlkTmFmVDUwcThsZHdIMldGYURmS3Rh?=
 =?utf-8?B?YkVmL1BFWS9GMUxqbUdmRGZaRWZncEpLb3c0L3M5TGpjMHkzVWZpWmdyaTFi?=
 =?utf-8?B?WUZuOXRBV0tYWTN5eklRSmN4RzRIT3BuMWEva3FudVM2OGh2d2FLMkpWR0xy?=
 =?utf-8?B?Sk90TzlhNVUzL0VKS1JmVDFjS042WS9nQ0lkeHFadDVWajh4M1RaSUkyS0Vo?=
 =?utf-8?B?K0RqRDR4OG1GRG5hR1pzRjI0TkFJeTZnSzFaY3FibTFmcDZvNGNsYVl5dUZl?=
 =?utf-8?B?UCtremhvbU4rTzM5QXJ6bkRTN2tuKyt4OWxOT29ybFZhU3lPcUlFOEpQKytW?=
 =?utf-8?B?cnA4VEZnNXRPdW10QWhiVUFlSE5BRWJWTU11QkgwUVpuSitDQjN6S0s5aTFE?=
 =?utf-8?B?UVB6YjI0T2dJQ3NuM1E3aTNUbjQwYXl6QmlzeXFYdUlkSnlURi9waCtPSGpL?=
 =?utf-8?B?UEpyeDdpM2x5alBXVExTOGdsUWMwZVgwK1Q5MlhIR3pnRFlVU3hJVk5DME9G?=
 =?utf-8?Q?KmbBGmOlMe27S8ms6pQSSJo/w?=
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c4c60cce-373a-4ca3-66ac-08dc10d7d8d9
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: SN7PR11MB7540.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jan 2024 05:57:22.5037
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 46c98d88-e344-4ed4-8496-4ed7712e255d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: tLSsJI/FKBYgpiDdrC0jzfbb99G7ntVCmEF4k0NwAQiE+lmNavCP2sbmMaHp6G+zFqYXHlS3TTDNJq6BMHsjvg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM4PR11MB6093
X-OriginatorOrg: intel.com

On 2024/1/8 12:07, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
>> Sent: Friday, January 5, 2024 10:45 PM
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 02:52:50AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>> but in reality the relation could be identified in an easy way due to a SIOV
>>>> restriction which we discussed before - shared PASID space of PF
>> disallows
>>>> assigning sibling vdev's to a same VM (otherwise no way to identify which
>>>> sibling vdev triggering an iopf when a pasid is used on both vdev's). That
>>>> restriction implies that within an iommufd context every iommufd_device
>>>> object should contain a unique struct device pointer. So PASID can be
>>>> instead ignored in the lookup then just always do iommufd_get_dev_id()
>>>> using struct device.
>>>
>>> A bit more background.
>>>
>>> Previously we thought this restriction only applies to SIOV+vSVA, as
>>> a guest process may bind to both sibling vdev's, leading to the same
>>> pasid situation.
>>>
>>> In concept w/o vSVA it's still possible to assign sibling vdev's to
>>> a same VM as each vdev is allocated with a unique pasid to mark vRID
>>> so can be differentiated from each other in the fault/error path.
>>
>> I thought the SIOV plan was that each "vdev" ie vpci function would
>> get a slice of the pRID's PASID space statically selected at creation?
>>
>> So SVA/etc doesn't matter, you reliably get a disjoint set of pRID &
>> pPASID into each VM.
>>
>>  From that view you can't identify the iommufd dev_id without knowing
>> both the pRID and pPASID which will disambiguate the different SIOV
>> iommufd dev_id instances sharing a rid.
> 
> true when assigning those instances to different VMs.
> 
> Here I was talking about assigning them to a same VM being a problem.
> with rid sharing plus same ENQCMD pPASID potentially used on both
> instances there'd be ambiguity in vSVA e.g. iopf to identify dev_id.
> 
> we agreed before on preventing sibling vdev's in one VM for above
> reason, but only as far as vSVA is concerned.
> 
> then given the new finding in err reporting I wondered whether this
> restriction should be applied to all SIOV scenarios (but irrelevant now
> with below explanation after another thinking)
> 
>>
>>> But when looking at this err code issue with Yi closely, we found
>>> there is another gap in the VT-d spec. Upon devtlb invalidation
>>> timeout the hw doesn't report pasid in the error info register. this
>>> makes it impossible to identify the source vdev if a hwpt invalidation
>>> request involves sibling vdev's from a same PF.
>>
>> Don't you know which command timed out?
> 
> unfortunately no.
> 
> for errors related to descriptor fetch the driver can tell the command
> by looking at the head pointer of the invalidation queue.
> 
> command completion is indirectly detected by inserting a wait descriptor
> as fence. completion timeout error is reported in an error register. but
> this register doesn't record pasid, nor does the command location. if there
> are multiple pending devtlb invalidation commands upon timeout
> error the spec suggests the driver to treat all of them timeout as the
> register can only record one rid.
> 
> this is kind of moot. If the driver submits only one command (plus wait)
> at a time it doesn't need hw's help to identify the timeout command.
> If the driver batches invalidation commands it must treat all timeout if
> an timeout error is reported.
> 
> from this angle whether to record pasid doesn't really matter.
> 
> intel-iommu driver doesn't batch commands. so it's possible for
> the driver to figure out the timeout device itself and identify rid plus
> pasid to find dev_id from iommufd.

based on this, even RID is unnecessary. Software should know which device
it has sent a devTLB invalidation.

-- 
Regards,
Yi Liu