[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2023 09:28:32 -0700
From: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev
Cc: Vasant Hegde <vasant.hegde@....com>,
Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu: amd: Set page size bitmap during V2 domain
allocation
On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 12:27:42AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> With the addition of the V2 page table support, the domain page size
> bitmap needs to be set prior to iommu core setting up direct mappings
> for reserved regions. When reserved regions are mapped, if this is not
> done, it will be looking at the V1 page size bitmap when determining
> the page size to use in iommu_pgsize(). When it gets into the actual
> amd mapping code, a check of see if the page size is supported can
> fail, because at that point it is checking it against the V2 page size
> bitmap which only supports 4K, 2M, and 1G.
>
> Add a check to __iommu_domain_alloc() to not override the
> bitmap if it was already set by the iommu ops domain_alloc() code path.
>
> Cc: Vasant Hegde <vasant.hegde@....com>
> Cc: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>
> Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
> Fixes: 4db6c41f0946 ("iommu/amd: Add support for using AMD IOMMU v2 page table for DMA-API")
> Signed-off-by: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>
I'm still not sure this is the best solution. Feels odd with adding a
check to core code to handle something one of the drivers has
done. Another thought was something like arm does, with amd_iommu_ops
dropping the const and setting the default page size bitmap in
iommu_init_pci(), but I think that would still require adding
something in the protection domain/init code to deal with it forcing
v1, so it would still require a check in the core code.
Would adding an op make more sense, with a generic op doing what the
core code currently does for setting the default? Or am I overthinking
this?
snits
> ---
> drivers/iommu/amd/iommu.c | 6 ++----
> drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 9 +++++++--
> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/amd/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/amd/iommu.c
> index 5a505ba5467e..167da5b1a5e3 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/amd/iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/amd/iommu.c
> @@ -1666,10 +1666,6 @@ static void do_attach(struct iommu_dev_data *dev_data,
> domain->dev_iommu[iommu->index] += 1;
> domain->dev_cnt += 1;
>
> - /* Override supported page sizes */
> - if (domain->flags & PD_GIOV_MASK)
> - domain->domain.pgsize_bitmap = AMD_IOMMU_PGSIZES_V2;
> -
> /* Update device table */
> set_dte_entry(iommu, dev_data->devid, domain,
> ats, dev_data->iommu_v2);
> @@ -2048,6 +2044,8 @@ static int protection_domain_init_v2(struct protection_domain *domain)
>
> domain->flags |= PD_GIOV_MASK;
>
> + domain->domain.pgsize_bitmap = AMD_IOMMU_PGSIZES_V2;
> +
> if (domain_enable_v2(domain, 1)) {
> domain_id_free(domain->id);
> return -ENOMEM;
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> index 10db680acaed..256a38371120 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> @@ -1964,8 +1964,13 @@ static struct iommu_domain *__iommu_domain_alloc(struct bus_type *bus,
> return NULL;
>
> domain->type = type;
> - /* Assume all sizes by default; the driver may override this later */
> - domain->pgsize_bitmap = bus->iommu_ops->pgsize_bitmap;
> + /*
> + * If not already set, assume all sizes by default; the driver
> + * may override this later
> + */
> + if (!domain->pgsize_bitmap)
> + domain->pgsize_bitmap = bus->iommu_ops->pgsize_bitmap;
> +
> if (!domain->ops)
> domain->ops = bus->iommu_ops->default_domain_ops;
>
> --
> 2.38.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists