[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e4719cdb-6046-46cf-e63d-a1e7968ffefb@linux.intel.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2022 19:58:33 +0800
From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...aro.org>,
Zhu Tony <tony.zhu@...el.com>, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 07/12] arm-smmu-v3/sva: Add SVA domain support
On 2022/7/23 22:20, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 01:07:05PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
>> Add support for SVA domain allocation and provide an SVA-specific
>> iommu_domain_ops.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
>> Tested-by: Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...aro.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h | 6 ++
>> .../iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 3 +
>> 3 files changed, 78 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h
>> index d2ba86470c42..96399dd3a67a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h
>> @@ -758,6 +758,7 @@ struct iommu_sva *arm_smmu_sva_bind(struct device *dev, struct mm_struct *mm);
>> void arm_smmu_sva_unbind(struct iommu_sva *handle);
>> u32 arm_smmu_sva_get_pasid(struct iommu_sva *handle);
>> void arm_smmu_sva_notifier_synchronize(void);
>> +struct iommu_domain *arm_smmu_sva_domain_alloc(void);
>> #else /* CONFIG_ARM_SMMU_V3_SVA */
>> static inline bool arm_smmu_sva_supported(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>> {
>> @@ -803,5 +804,10 @@ static inline u32 arm_smmu_sva_get_pasid(struct iommu_sva *handle)
>> }
>>
>> static inline void arm_smmu_sva_notifier_synchronize(void) {}
>> +
>> +static inline struct iommu_domain *arm_smmu_sva_domain_alloc(void)
>> +{
>> + return NULL;
>> +}
>> #endif /* CONFIG_ARM_SMMU_V3_SVA */
>> #endif /* _ARM_SMMU_V3_H */
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c
>> index f155d406c5d5..fc4555dac5b4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c
>> @@ -549,3 +549,72 @@ void arm_smmu_sva_notifier_synchronize(void)
>> */
>> mmu_notifier_synchronize();
>> }
>> +
>> +static int arm_smmu_sva_set_dev_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>> + struct device *dev, ioasid_t id)
>> +{
>> + int ret = 0;
>> + struct mm_struct *mm;
>> + struct iommu_sva *handle;
>> +
>> + if (domain->type != IOMMU_DOMAIN_SVA)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
> Not needed, this function is only called from the sva ops, other
> domain types are impossible, we don't need sanity tests in drivers
>
>> + mm = domain->mm;
>> + if (WARN_ON(!mm))
>> + return -ENODEV;
>
> Also guarenteed by core code, don't need sanity tests
Above two updated. Thanks!
>
>> +static void arm_smmu_sva_block_dev_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>> + struct device *dev, ioasid_t id)
>> +{
>> + struct mm_struct *mm = domain->mm;
>> + struct arm_smmu_bond *bond = NULL, *t;
>> + struct arm_smmu_master *master = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&sva_lock);
>> + list_for_each_entry(t, &master->bonds, list) {
>> + if (t->mm == mm) {
>> + bond = t;
>> + break;
>
> This doesn't seem like what I would expect, the domain should be used
> at the key in these datastructures, not the mm..
Both Intel and arm-smmu-v3 SVA code have room to cleanup. I've discussed
this with Jean. We will cleanup and refactor the individual drivers in
separated series.
>
>> index ae8ec8df47c1..a30b252e2f95 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> @@ -1999,6 +1999,9 @@ static struct iommu_domain *arm_smmu_domain_alloc(unsigned type)
>> {
>> struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain;
>>
>> + if (type == IOMMU_DOMAIN_SVA)
>> + return arm_smmu_sva_domain_alloc();
>
> If no drivers are sharing any code with their other alloc paths perhaps we
> should have a dedicated op for SVA?
AFAICS, Robin is refactoring the domain allocation interfaces. How about
leaving this until we finalize the interface?
Best regards,
baolu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists