Re: [PATCH v4 09/12] iommu/vt-d: Add iotlb flush for nested domain

[Nicolin Chen]

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 01:56:54PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 11:18:46PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 09:45:21AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > 
> > > > But if stepping back a bit supporting an array-based non-native format
> > > > could simplify the uAPI design and allows code sharing for array among
> > > > vendor drivers. You can still keep the entry as native format then the
> > > > only difference with future in-kernel fast path is just on walking an array
> > > > vs. walking a ring. And VMM doesn't need to expose non-invalidate
> > > > cmds to the kernel and then be skipped.
> > > 
> > > Ah, so we might still design the uAPI to be ring based at this
> > > moment, yet don't support a case CONS > 0 to leave that to an
> > > upgrade in the future.
> > > 
> > > I will try estimating a bit how complicated to implement the
> > > ring, to see if we could just start with that. Otherwise, will
> > > just start with an array.
> > 
> > I drafted a uAPI structure for a ring-based SW queue. While I am
> > trying an implementation, I'd like to collect some comments at the
> > structure, to see if it overall makes sense.
> 
> I don't think a ring makes alot of sense at this point. The only thing
> it optimizes is a system call if the kernel needs to wrap around the
> tail of the ring. It would possibly be better to have a small gather
> list than try to describe the ring logic..
> 
> Further, the VMM already has to process it, so the vmm already knows
> what ops are going to kernel are not. The VMM can just organize them
> in a linear list in one way or another. We need to copy and read this
> stuff in the VMM anyhow to protect against a hostile VM.

OK. Then an linear array it is.

> > One thing that I couldn't add to this common structure for SMMU
> > is the hardware error code, which should be encoded in the higher
> > bits of the consumer index register, following the SMMU spec:
> >     ERR, bits [30:24] Error reason code.
> >     - When a command execution error is detected, ERR is set to a
> >       reason code and then the SMMU_GERROR.CMDQ_ERR global error
> >       becomes active.
> >     - The value in this field is UNKNOWN when the CMDQ_ERR global
> >       error is not active. This field resets to an UNKNOWN value.
> 
> The invalidate ioctl should fail in some deterministic way and report
> back the error code and the highest array index that maybe could have
> triggered it.

Yea. Having an error code in the highest bits of array_index,
"array_index != array_max" could be the deterministic way to
indicate a failure. And a kernel errno could be returned also
to the invalidate ioctl.

> The highest array index sounds generic, the error code maybe is too

We could do in its and report the error code in its raw form:
	__u32 out_array_index;
	/* number of bits used to report error code in the returned array_index */
	__u32 out_array_index_error_code_bits;
Or just:
	__u32 out_array_index;
	__u32 out_error_code;

Do we have to define a list of generic error code?

Thanks!
Nic