[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87y27nfjel.ffs@tglx>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 16:36:50 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Jacob Jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>
Cc: iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] x86/mmu: Add mm-based PASID refcounting
On Mon, Sep 20 2021 at 19:23, Fenghua Yu wrote:
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU_SVM
> +void pasid_put(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm);
> +#else
> +static inline void pasid_put(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm) { }
> +#endif
This code is again defining that PASID is entirely restricted to
INTEL. It's true, that no other vendor supports this, but PASID is
a non-vendor specific concept.
Sticking this into INTEL code means that any other PASID implementation
has to rip it out again from INTEL code and make it a run time property.
The refcounting issue should be the same for all PASID mechanisms which
attach PASID to a mm. What's INTEL specific about that?
So can we pretty please do that correct right away?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists