[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB527646793F6DFD18145A455D8CAA9@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 07:07:12 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
"Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 10/12] iommu/vt-d: Fold __dmar_remove_one_dev_info()
into its caller
> From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 10:52 AM
>
> Fold __dmar_remove_one_dev_info() into dmar_remove_one_dev_info()
> which
> is its only caller. Make the spin lock critical range only cover the
> device list change code and remove some unnecessary checks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c | 34 +++++++++-------------------------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
> index af22690f44c8..8345e0c0824c 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
> @@ -295,7 +295,6 @@ static LIST_HEAD(dmar_satc_units);
> static int g_num_of_iommus;
>
> static void dmar_remove_one_dev_info(struct device *dev);
> -static void __dmar_remove_one_dev_info(struct device_domain_info *info);
>
> int dmar_disabled = !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU_DEFAULT_ON);
> int intel_iommu_sm =
> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU_SCALABLE_MODE_DEFAULT_ON);
> @@ -4141,20 +4140,14 @@ static void domain_context_clear(struct
> device_domain_info *info)
> &domain_context_clear_one_cb, info);
> }
>
> -static void __dmar_remove_one_dev_info(struct device_domain_info *info)
> +static void dmar_remove_one_dev_info(struct device *dev)
> {
> - struct dmar_domain *domain;
> - struct intel_iommu *iommu;
> -
> - assert_spin_locked(&device_domain_lock);
> -
> - if (WARN_ON(!info))
> - return;
> -
> - iommu = info->iommu;
> - domain = info->domain;
> + struct device_domain_info *info = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
> + struct dmar_domain *domain = info->domain;
this local variable is not required as there is just one reference
to info->domain.
btw I didn't see info->domain is cleared in this path. Is it correct?
> + struct intel_iommu *iommu = info->iommu;
> + unsigned long flags;
>
> - if (info->dev && !dev_is_real_dma_subdevice(info->dev)) {
> + if (!dev_is_real_dma_subdevice(info->dev)) {
> if (dev_is_pci(info->dev) && sm_supported(iommu))
> intel_pasid_tear_down_entry(iommu, info->dev,
> PASID_RID2PASID, false);
> @@ -4164,20 +4157,11 @@ static void
> __dmar_remove_one_dev_info(struct device_domain_info *info)
> intel_pasid_free_table(info->dev);
> }
>
> - list_del(&info->link);
> - domain_detach_iommu(domain, iommu);
> -}
> -
> -static void dmar_remove_one_dev_info(struct device *dev)
> -{
> - struct device_domain_info *info;
> - unsigned long flags;
> -
> spin_lock_irqsave(&device_domain_lock, flags);
> - info = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
> - if (info)
> - __dmar_remove_one_dev_info(info);
> + list_del(&info->link);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&device_domain_lock, flags);
> +
> + domain_detach_iommu(domain, iommu);
> }
>
> static int md_domain_init(struct dmar_domain *domain, int guest_width)
> --
> 2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists