Re: [PATCH RFC 11/14] arm64: Move the ASID allocator code in a separate file

[Will Deacon]

On Sun, Sep 08, 2019 at 07:52:55AM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 6:40 PM Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I'll keep my system use the same ASID for SMP + IOMMU :P
> >
> > You will want a separate allocator for that:
> >
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190610184714.6786-2-jean-philippe.brucker@xxxxxxx
> 
> Yes, it is hard to maintain ASID between IOMMU and CPUMMU or different
> system, because it's difficult to synchronize the IO_ASID when the CPU
> ASID is rollover.
> But we could still use hardware broadcast TLB invalidation instruction
> to uniformly manage the ASID and IO_ASID, or OTHER_ASID in our IOMMU.

That's probably a bad idea, because you'll likely stall execution on the
CPU until the IOTLB has completed invalidation. In the case of ATS, I think
an endpoint ATC is permitted to take over a minute to respond. In reality, I
suspect the worst you'll ever see would be in the msec range, but that's
still an unacceptable period of time to hold a CPU.

> Welcome to join our disscusion:
> "Introduce an implementation of IOMMU in linux-riscv"
> 9 Sep 2019, 10:45 Jade-room-I&II (Corinthia Hotel Lisbon) RISC-V MC

I attended this session, but it unfortunately raised many more questions
than it answered.

Will