Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Aug 2023 10:51:08 -0300 | From | Jason Gunthorpe <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/8] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Perform invalidations over installed_smmus |
| |
On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 11:44:55AM +0800, Michael Shavit wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 3:41 AM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote: > > > > On 2023-08-17 20:20, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > It is certainly wrong to skip invalidations generated for any other > > > reason. > > > > > > From what I can tell SVA domains should have their CD table entry > > > programmed with "ASET=0" and normal paging domains should be > > > programmed with "ASET=1". This causes only the SVA domains to listen > > > to the BTM invalidations. > > > > Correct. > > > > Thanks, > > Robin. > > Would it be fair to rename arm_smmu_tlb_inv_asid (or move into > arm-smmu-v3-sva) to make it explicit that it shouldn't be used outside > of SVA then? Or add a parameter such as skip_btm_capable_devices.
???
arm_smmu_tlb_inv_asid() is generally used in many places and has nothing to do with BTM..
Did you mean arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_asid ?
Broadly, invalidation is not SVA specific..
Notice that arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_asid() already duplicates arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain().
IMHO I would split the ATC step out of arm_smmu_mm_invalidate_range(), get rid of arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain(), and have the mmu notifier just do as it already does:
if (!(smmu_domain->smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_BTM)) arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain_no_atc(start, size, smmu_mn->cd->asid, PAGE_SIZE, false, smmu_domain); arm_smmu_atc_inv_domain(smmu_domain, start, size);
And make arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain() just call arm_smmu_tlb_inv_range_domain_no_atc(); arm_smmu_atc_inv_domain();
Jason
| |