Hi Longpeng,

On 4/7/21 2:35 PM, Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.) wrote:
Hi Baolu,

-----Original Message-----
From: Lu Baolu [mailto:baolu...@linux.intel.com]
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 12:44 PM
To: Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)
<longpe...@huawei.com>; io...@lists.linux-foundation.org;
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: baolu...@linux.intel.com; David Woodhouse <dw...@infradead.org>; Nadav
Amit <nadav.a...@gmail.com>; Alex Williamson <alex.william...@redhat.com>;
Kevin Tian <kevin.t...@intel.com>; Gonglei (Arei) <arei.gong...@huawei.com>;
sta...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/vt-d: Force to flush iotlb before creating superpage

Hi Longpeng,

On 4/1/21 3:18 PM, Longpeng(Mike) wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
index ee09323..cbcb434 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
@@ -2342,9 +2342,20 @@ static inline int hardware_largepage_caps(struct
dmar_domain *domain,
                                 * removed to make room for superpage(s).
                                 * We're adding new large pages, so make sure
                                 * we don't remove their parent tables.
+                                *
+                                * We also need to flush the iotlb before 
creating
+                                * superpage to ensure it does not perserves any
+                                * obsolete info.
                                 */
-                               dma_pte_free_pagetable(domain, iov_pfn, end_pfn,
-                                                      largepage_lvl + 1);
+                               if (dma_pte_present(pte)) {

The dma_pte_free_pagetable() clears a batch of PTEs. So checking current PTE is
insufficient. How about removing this check and always performing cache
invalidation?


Um...the PTE here may be present( e.g. 4K mapping --> superpage mapping ) 
orNOT-present ( e.g. create a totally new superpage mapping ), but we only need to 
call free_pagetable and flush_iotlb in the former case, right ?

But this code covers multiple PTEs and perhaps crosses the page
boundary.

How about moving this code into a separated function and check PTE
presence there. A sample code could look like below: [compiled but not
tested!]

diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
index d334f5b4e382..0e04d450c38a 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
@@ -2300,6 +2300,41 @@ static inline int hardware_largepage_caps(struct dmar_domain *domain,
        return level;
 }

+/*
+ * Ensure that old small page tables are removed to make room for superpage(s). + * We're going to add new large pages, so make sure we don't remove their parent
+ * tables. The IOTLB/devTLBs should be flushed if any PDE/PTEs are cleared.
+ */
+static void switch_to_super_page(struct dmar_domain *domain,
+                                unsigned long start_pfn,
+                                unsigned long end_pfn, int level)
+{
+       unsigned long lvl_pages = lvl_to_nr_pages(level);
+       struct dma_pte *pte = NULL;
+       int i;
+
+       while (start_pfn <= end_pfn) {
+               if (!pte)
+                       pte = pfn_to_dma_pte(domain, start_pfn, &level);
+
+               if (dma_pte_present(pte)) {
+                       dma_pte_free_pagetable(domain, start_pfn,
+                                              start_pfn + lvl_pages - 1,
+                                              level + 1);
+
+                       for_each_domain_iommu(i, domain)
+                               iommu_flush_iotlb_psi(g_iommus[i], domain,
+                                                     start_pfn, lvl_pages,
+                                                     0, 0);
+               }
+
+               pte++;
+               start_pfn += lvl_pages;
+               if (first_pte_in_page(pte))
+                       pte = NULL;
+       }
+}
+
 static int
 __domain_mapping(struct dmar_domain *domain, unsigned long iov_pfn,
                 unsigned long phys_pfn, unsigned long nr_pages, int prot)
@@ -2341,22 +2376,11 @@ __domain_mapping(struct dmar_domain *domain, unsigned long iov_pfn,
                                return -ENOMEM;
                        /* It is large page*/
                        if (largepage_lvl > 1) {
-                               unsigned long nr_superpages, end_pfn;
+                               unsigned long end_pfn;

                                pteval |= DMA_PTE_LARGE_PAGE;
-                               lvl_pages = lvl_to_nr_pages(largepage_lvl);
-
-                               nr_superpages = nr_pages / lvl_pages;
- end_pfn = iov_pfn + nr_superpages * lvl_pages - 1;
-
-                               /*
-                                * Ensure that old small page tables are
-                                * removed to make room for superpage(s).
- * We're adding new large pages, so make sure
-                                * we don't remove their parent tables.
-                                */
- dma_pte_free_pagetable(domain, iov_pfn, end_pfn,
-                                                      largepage_lvl + 1);
+ end_pfn = ((iov_pfn + nr_pages) & level_mask(largepage_lvl)) - 1; + switch_to_super_page(domain, iov_pfn, end_pfn, largepage_lvl);
                        } else {
                                pteval &= ~(uint64_t)DMA_PTE_LARGE_PAGE;
                        }

I will send you the diff patch off list. Any thoughts?

Best regards,
baolu


+                                       int i;
+
+                                       dma_pte_free_pagetable(domain, iov_pfn, 
end_pfn,
+                                                              largepage_lvl + 
1);
+                                       for_each_domain_iommu(i, domain)
+                                               
iommu_flush_iotlb_psi(g_iommus[i], domain,
+                                                                     iov_pfn, 
nr_pages, 0, 0);
+

Best regards,
baolu
  • Re: [PATCH] io... Lu Baolu

Reply via email to