Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-188252-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
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: Thu, 23 May 2024 20:26:29 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>
CC: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>, "will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
	"robin.murphy@arm.com" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	"suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
	"joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "iommu@lists.linux.dev"
	<iommu@lists.linux.dev>, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>, "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
	"eric.auger@redhat.com" <eric.auger@redhat.com>, "vasant.hegde@amd.com"
	<vasant.hegde@amd.com>, "jon.grimm@amd.com" <jon.grimm@amd.com>,
	"santosh.shukla@amd.com" <santosh.shukla@amd.com>, "Dhaval.Giani@amd.com"
	<Dhaval.Giani@amd.com>, "shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com"
	<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFCv1 07/14] iommufd: Add viommu set/unset_dev_id ops
Message-ID: <ZlAI5d6ktg7yncLE@nvidia.com>
References: <cover.1712978212.git.nicolinc@nvidia.com>
 <6e57d7b5aa1705bdd547b1cd2aca93d3bf70dfa4.1712978212.git.nicolinc@nvidia.com>
 <ZkDWXnPW7CaX5TtA@nvidia.com>
 <ZkGZc5dvLigXcWib@nvidia.com>
 <ZkOI8ztR1mUMJ8oe@nvidia.com>
 <ZkQW6/OAQ8MzN6Go@nvidia.com>
 <20240521182448.GN20229@nvidia.com>
 <BN9PR11MB5276EEC2A1DDA9C92F96737C8CF42@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <20240523150120.GO20229@nvidia.com>
 <BN9PR11MB5276A896D215E1FA61DECDC38CF52@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BN9PR11MB5276A896D215E1FA61DECDC38CF52@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 May 2024 03:26:44.8636
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: de9f0719-6e46-4d8a-6abb-08dc7ba1566d
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:
	CO1PEPF000044F3.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR12MB4079

On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 02:21:23AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2024 11:01 PM
> >
> > On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 06:19:59AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 2:25 AM
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 06:59:07PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > > So, you want a proxy S1 domain for a device to attach, in case
> > > > > of a stage-2 only setup, because an S2 domain will no longer has
> > > > > a VMID, since it's shared among viommus. In the SMMU driver case,
> > > > > an arm_smmu_domain won't have an smmu pointer, so a device can't
> > > > > attach to an S2 domain but always an nested S1 domain, right?
> > > >
> > > > That seems like a simple solution to the VMID lifetime, but it means
> > > > the kernel has to decode more types of vSTE.
> > > >
> > >
> > > why does ATC invalidation need to know about VMID?
> >
> > ATC invalidation always requires a vRID to pRID translation and the
> > VIOMMU will hold that translation.
> >
> > On vCMDQ HW and on AMD HW the vRID to pRID translation is pushed into
> > HW, and vCMDQ requires the VMID to do that.
> >
> 
> At a quick glance VMID and vRID->pRID translation are both configurations
> of a vintf.
> 
> My impression was that vintf->vmid is added to guest cmd when it's
> about iotlb invalidation.
> 
> then vintf->sid_slots is walked when handling a guest cmd for ATC
> invalidation.
> 
> I'm not sure why the latter one requires a valid VMID to do the walking
> except it's a implementation choice made by vCMDQ?

Well, we haven't thought about a case of doing ATC invalidation
via VINTF/VCMDQ without setting up a VMID, as "VMID" is a field
in the VINTF_CONFIG register next to the Enable bit and must be
set prior to enabling a VINTF, though your understanding of the
HW work flow is probably accurate :)

And the narrative at the top was trying to describe the links:
  [ device ] => [ proxy identity S1 ] => [ viommu [ shared S2 ] ]
v.s.
  [ device ] => [ non-shareable S2 ]

So the first case can take advantage of VIOMMU_INVALIDATE v.s.
the second case requires a DEV_INVALIDATE.

Another conclusion between the lines: since ARM SMMU will have
the first case (with viommu), there is no longer any use of a
DEV_INVALIDATE ioctl. So, we would likely drop it in the coming
version.

Thanks
Nicolin