[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3eb98f00-6bf2-0c2b-fb95-74505c7fd917@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 11:05:01 +0800
From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Kumar, Sanjay K" <sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com>,
"Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, "Sun, Yi Y" <yi.y.sun@...el.com>,
"peterx@...hat.com" <peterx@...hat.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@....com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/12] iommu/vt-d: Manage scalalble mode PASID tables
Hi,
On 09/06/2018 10:52 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Lu Baolu [mailto:baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 10:46 AM
>>
> [...]
>>>> @@ -143,8 +142,9 @@ int intel_pasid_alloc_table(struct device *dev)
>>>> return -ENOMEM;
>>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pasid_table->dev);
>>>>
>>>> - size = sizeof(struct pasid_entry);
>>>> + size = sizeof(struct pasid_dir_entry);
>>>> count = min_t(int, pci_max_pasids(to_pci_dev(dev)),
>>>> intel_pasid_max_id);
>>>> + count >>= PASID_PDE_SHIFT;
>>>> order = get_order(size * count);
>>>> pages = alloc_pages_node(info->iommu->node,
>>>> GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_ZERO,
>>>> @@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ int intel_pasid_alloc_table(struct device *dev)
>>>>
>>>> pasid_table->table = page_address(pages);
>>>> pasid_table->order = order;
>>>> - pasid_table->max_pasid = count;
>>>> + pasid_table->max_pasid = count << PASID_PDE_SHIFT;
>>>
>>> are you sure of that count is PDE_SHIFT aligned? otherwise >>
>>> then << would lose some bits. If sure, then better add some check.
>>
>> I am making the max_pasid PDE_SHIFT aligned as the result of shift
>> operations.
>>
>
> earlier:
>>>> count = min_t(int, pci_max_pasids(to_pci_dev(dev)),
>>>> intel_pasid_max_id);
>
> so you decided to truncate count to be PDE_SHIFT aligned. Is PASID
> value user configurable? if not, then it's fine.
Here @count is the count of PASID directory entries, so it must be
truncated from the original max_pasid. PASID value is not configurable
anyway.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> attach_out:
>>>> device_attach_pasid_table(info, pasid_table);
>>>> @@ -162,14 +162,33 @@ int intel_pasid_alloc_table(struct device *dev)
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +/* Get PRESENT bit of a PASID directory entry. */
>>>> +static inline bool
>>>> +pasid_pde_is_present(struct pasid_dir_entry *pde)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return READ_ONCE(pde->val) & PASID_PTE_PRESENT;
>>>
>>> curious why adding READ_ONCE specifically for PASID structure,
>>> but not used for any other existing vtd structures? Is it to address
>>> some specific requirement on PASID structure as defined in spec?
>>
>> READ/WRITE_ONCE are used in pasid entry read/write to prevent the
>> compiler from merging, refetching or reordering successive instances of
>> read/write.
>>
>
> that's fine. I'm just curious why this is the first user of such macros
> in intel-iommu driver. Even before with ecs we have PASID table too.
>
Best regards,
Lu Baolu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists