[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <939f8745-6f72-522c-1216-70e424740b62@samsung.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:02:40 +0200
From: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
To: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
Sricharan R <sricharan@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@...aro.org>,
Archit Taneja <architt@...eaurora.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/6] iommu/arm-smmu: Invoke pm_runtime during probe,
add/remove device
Hi All,
On 2017-07-13 13:50, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Sricharan R <sricharan@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>> On 7/13/2017 10:43 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>> On 07/13/2017 04:24 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>> On 07/06, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>>>> @@ -1231,12 +1237,18 @@ static int arm_smmu_map(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned long iova,
>>>>> static size_t arm_smmu_unmap(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned long iova,
>>>>> size_t size)
>>>>> {
>>>>> - struct io_pgtable_ops *ops = to_smmu_domain(domain)->pgtbl_ops;
>>>>> + struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = to_smmu_domain(domain);
>>>>> + struct io_pgtable_ops *ops = smmu_domain->pgtbl_ops;
>>>>> + size_t ret;
>>>>> if (!ops)
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> - return ops->unmap(ops, iova, size);
>>>>> + pm_runtime_get_sync(smmu_domain->smmu->dev);
>>>> Can these map/unmap ops be called from an atomic context? I seem
>>>> to recall that being a problem before.
>>> That's something which was dropped in the following patch merged in master:
>>> 523d7423e21b iommu/arm-smmu: Remove io-pgtable spinlock
>>>
>>> Looks like we don't need locks here anymore?
>> Apart from the locking, wonder why a explicit pm_runtime is needed
>> from unmap. Somehow looks like some path in the master using that
>> should have enabled the pm ?
>>
> Yes, there are a bunch of scenarios where unmap can happen with
> disabled master (but not in atomic context). On the gpu side we
> opportunistically keep a buffer mapping until the buffer is freed
> (which can happen after gpu is disabled). Likewise, v4l2 won't unmap
> an exported dmabuf while some other driver holds a reference to it
> (which can be dropped when the v4l2 device is suspended).
>
> Since unmap triggers tbl flush which touches iommu regs, the iommu
> driver *definitely* needs a pm_runtime_get_sync().
Afair unmap might be called from atomic context as well, for example as
a result of dma_unmap_page(). In exynos IOMMU I simply check the runtime
PM state of IOMMU device. TLB flush is performed only when IOMMU is in
active
state. If it is suspended, I assume that the IOMMU controller's context
is already lost and its respective power domain might be already turned off,
so there is no point in touching IOMMU registers.
Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Powered by blists - more mailing lists