Subject: [PATCH v3 4/6] iommu/io-pgtable-arm: add support for non-strict mode

From: [email-masked] (Will Deacon)
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 08:33:01 +0100

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 01:43:37AM +0000, Yang, Shunyong wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-08-14 at 11:02 +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > On 14/08/18 09:35, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 04:33:41PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown)
> > > wrote:
> > > > On 2018/8/6 9:32, Yang, Shunyong wrote:
> > > > > On 2018/7/26 22:37, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > > > > Because DMA code is not the only caller of iommu_map/unmap.
> > > > > > It's
> > > > > > perfectly legal in the IOMMU API to partially unmap a
> > > > > > previous mapping
> > > > > > such that a block entry needs to be split. The DMA API,
> > > > > > however, is a
> > > > > > lot more constrined, and thus by construction the iommu-dma
> > > > > > layer will
> > > > > > never generate a block-splitting iommu_unmap() except as a
> > > > > > result of
> > > > > > illegal DMA API usage, and we obviously do not need to
> > > > > > optimise for that
> > > > > > (you will get a warning about mismatched unmaps under dma-
> > > > > > debug, but
> > > > > > it's a bit too expensive to police in the general case).
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > When I was reading the code around arm_lpae_split_blk_unmap(),
> > > > > I was
> > > > > curious in which scenario a block will be split. Now with your
> > > > > comments
> > > > > "Because DMA code is not the only caller of iommu_map/unmap",
> > > > > it seems
> > > > > depending on the user.
> > > > >
> > > > > Would you please explain this further? I mean besides DMA,
> > > > > which user
> > > > > will use iommu_map/umap and how it split a block.
> > > >
> > > > I also think that arm_lpae_split_blk_unmap() scenario is not
> > > > exist, maybe
> > > > we should remove it, and give a warning for this wrong usage.
> > >
> > > Can't it happen with VFIO?
> >
> > ...or GPU drivers, or anyone else managing their own IOMMU domain
> > directly. A sequence like this is perfectly legal:
> >
> >     iommu_map(domain, iova, paddr, SZ_8M, prot);
> >     ...
> >     iommu_unmap(domain, iova + SZ_1M * 5, SZ_1M * 3);
> >
> > where if iova and paddr happen to be suitably aligned, the map will
> > lay
> > down blocks, and the unmap will then have to split one of them into
> > pages to remove half of it. We don't tear our hair out maintaining
> > split_blk_unmap() for the fun of it :(
>
> Thank you for the GPU example. But for VFIO, I remember all memory will
> be   pinned in the early stage of emulator (such as qemu) start. So,
> the split will occur at which operation? Maybe virtio balloon inflate?

My memory is pretty hazy here, but I was fairly sure that VFIO didn't
always unmap() with the same granularity as it map()'d, at least for
the v1 interface. Either way, split_blk_unmap() was written because it was
necessary at the time, rather than just for fun!

Will
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.