Re: [PATCH 1/9] AMD/IOMMU: redo awaiting of command completion

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/06/2021 13:08, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 09.06.2021 12:36, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 09/06/2021 10:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> @@ -49,28 +52,31 @@ static void send_iommu_command(struct am
>>>  static void flush_command_buffer(struct amd_iommu *iommu,
>>>                                   unsigned int timeout_base)
>>>  {
>>> +    static DEFINE_PER_CPU(uint64_t, poll_slot);
>>> +    uint64_t *this_poll_slot = &this_cpu(poll_slot);
>>> +    paddr_t addr = virt_to_maddr(this_poll_slot);
>>>      uint32_t cmd[4];
>>>      s_time_t start, timeout;
>>>      static unsigned int __read_mostly threshold = 1;
>>>  
>>> -    /* RW1C 'ComWaitInt' in status register */
>>> -    writel(IOMMU_STATUS_COMP_WAIT_INT,
>>> -           iommu->mmio_base + IOMMU_STATUS_MMIO_OFFSET);
>>> -
>>> -    /* send an empty COMPLETION_WAIT command to flush command buffer */
>>> -    cmd[3] = cmd[2] = 0;
>>> -    set_field_in_reg_u32(IOMMU_CMD_COMPLETION_WAIT, 0,
>>> +    ACCESS_ONCE(*this_poll_slot) = CMD_COMPLETION_INIT;
>>> +
>>> +    /* send a COMPLETION_WAIT command to flush command buffer */
>>> +    cmd[0] = addr;
>>> +    set_field_in_reg_u32(IOMMU_CONTROL_ENABLED, cmd[0],
>>> +                         IOMMU_COMP_WAIT_S_FLAG_MASK,
>>> +                         IOMMU_COMP_WAIT_S_FLAG_SHIFT, &cmd[0]);
>> set_field_in_reg_u32() is a disaster of a function - both in terms of
>> semantics, and code gen - and needs to be purged from the code.
> Long ago I had an item on my todo list to get this cleaned up. But
> it never really having made it up high enough, I dropped it at
> some point, in the hope that we'd manage to get this sorted while
> re-writing code step by step.
>
>> It is a shame we don't have a real struct for objects in the command
>> buffer, but in lieu of that, this is just
>>
>>     cmd[0] = addr | IOMMU_COMP_WAIT_S_FLAG_MASK;
>>
>> which is the direction that previous cleanup has gone.
> I don't think I can spot a single instance of such.

It's actually the other way around, for the emulation logic (which isn't
used in practice).

drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu_guest.c:348
    i = cmd->data[0] & IOMMU_COMP_WAIT_I_FLAG_MASK;

>  Some work was
> done to introduce (mainly bitfield) structs, but this surely goes
> too far for the change at hand. I can spot two instances using
> MASK_INSR(), so I can see two consistent ways of doing what you
> ask for:
>
>     cmd[0] = addr | MASK_INSR(IOMMU_CONTROL_ENABLED,
>                               IOMMU_COMP_WAIT_S_FLAG_MASK);
>
> keeping the name as *_MASK (and I'd be open to replace
> IOMMU_CONTROL_ENABLED by true) or
>
>     cmd[0] = addr | IOMMU_COMP_WAIT_S_FLAG;
>
> i.e. dropping _MASK (but requiring adjustments elsewhere in the
> code). Please let me know which one you'd prefer.

TBH, I'd suggest just using

    cmd[0] = addr | IOMMU_COMP_WAIT_S_FLAG_MASK;

for now.  The constant is correct - its just the name which is wonky. 
This in particular will reduce the code churn for ...

>> There are no current users of IOMMU_COMP_WAIT_S_FLAG_SHIFT, and ...
>>
>>> +    cmd[1] = addr >> 32;
>>> +    set_field_in_reg_u32(IOMMU_CMD_COMPLETION_WAIT, cmd[1],
>>>                           IOMMU_CMD_OPCODE_MASK,
>>>                           IOMMU_CMD_OPCODE_SHIFT, &cmd[1]);
>>> -    set_field_in_reg_u32(IOMMU_CONTROL_ENABLED, 0,
>>> -                         IOMMU_COMP_WAIT_I_FLAG_MASK,
>>> -                         IOMMU_COMP_WAIT_I_FLAG_SHIFT, &cmd[0]);
>> ... this drops the final use of IOMMU_COMP_WAIT_I_FLAG_SHIFT, so both
>> should be dropped.
> Well, I can surely do so, but like this entire request of yours this
> feels like scope creep - there was no intention here to do any
> unrelated cleanup. And if I remove _S_ and _I_, then surely _F_
> wants dropping as well, while IOMMU_COMP_WAIT_ADDR_*_SHIFT have a
> use each in iommu_guest.c and hence need to stay for now.

... this, which I'm perfectly happy leaving to a subsequent change. 
(I'll even do it, if you're too busy right now).

What I am mainly concerned with is not using this opportunity to remove
uses of set_field_in_reg_u32().

>
>> As for IOMMU_CMD_OPCODE_SHIFT, that can't be dropped yet, but it would
>> still be better to use
>>
>>     cmd[1] = (addr >> 32) | MASK_INSR(IOMMU_CMD_COMPLETION_WAIT,
>> IOMMU_CMD_COMPLETION_WAIT);
>>
>> in the short term.
> Can do (using IOMMU_CMD_OPCODE_MASK).

Oops yes.  That was a copy&paste mistake.

~Andrew