Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] iommu/arm: Add BBM Level 2 smmu feature

[Robin Murphy]

On 04/03/2025 4:19 pm, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 04:02:20PM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> > On 04/03/2025 14:26, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 07:03:42PM +0000, Mikołaj Lenczewski wrote:
> > >
> > > > For example, if we use BBML2 for kernel mappings, does that require us
> > > > to repaint all kernel mappings when disabling BBML2 on smmu attach? I
> > > > am not sure, but definitely something to be worked out.
> > >
> > > No, it would be a per-mm_struct basis only if we did something like
> > > that
> > >
> > > When the SMMU driver puts a SVA on top of the mm_struct it would
> > > disable BBML2 usage only for that mm_struct and it's contained VMAs.
> >
> > I guess we would need to figure out some synchonization mechanism if disabling
> > BBML2 dynaically per-mm. If there was already a BBML2 operation in flight would
> > want to wait for it to end. But that's a problem to solve if/when it's shown to
> > be needed, I think.
>
> I have a feeling we can piggyback on the mmu notifiers to achieve this
> as all the changes to the PTEs should be bracketed by notifier
> callbacks..
>
> Let's hope it isn't needed.

Yup, as mentioned previously, this is largely theoretical and at worst 
only a risk of affecting 3rd-party SMMU implementations. Arm's 
implementations from MMU-700 onwards do support BBML2; MMU-600 *might* 
actually be OK as well, but it predates the definition of the feature, 
and there are more practical reasons not to integrate a decade-old SMMU 
design with brand new CPUs anyway.

Thanks,
Robin.