[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAF6AEGttkHPOsO+NSHZeRXiZBxU_26HZyGMjOZ3-Y8NZUgz0gA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 08:37:26 -0700
From: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>,
"moderated list:ARM SMMU DRIVERS" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:IOMMU SUBSYSTEM" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] iommu/io-pgtable-arm: Add way to debug pgtable walk
On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 8:14 AM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 10:52:21AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > From: Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>
> >
> > Add an io-pgtable method to walk the pgtable returning the raw PTEs that
> > would be traversed for a given iova access.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > include/linux/io-pgtable.h | 4 +++
> > 2 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c b/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c
> > index f7828a7aad41..f47a0e64bb35 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iommu/io-pgtable-arm.c
> > @@ -693,17 +693,19 @@ static size_t arm_lpae_unmap_pages(struct io_pgtable_ops *ops, unsigned long iov
> > data->start_level, ptep);
> > }
> >
> > -static phys_addr_t arm_lpae_iova_to_phys(struct io_pgtable_ops *ops,
> > - unsigned long iova)
> > +static int arm_lpae_pgtable_walk(struct io_pgtable_ops *ops, unsigned long iova,
> > + int (*cb)(void *cb_data, void *pte, int level),
> > + void *cb_data)
> > {
> > struct arm_lpae_io_pgtable *data = io_pgtable_ops_to_data(ops);
> > arm_lpae_iopte pte, *ptep = data->pgd;
> > int lvl = data->start_level;
> > + int ret;
> >
> > do {
> > /* Valid IOPTE pointer? */
> > if (!ptep)
> > - return 0;
> > + return -EFAULT;
>
> nit: -ENOENT might be a little better, as we're only checking against a
> NULL entry rather than strictly any faulting entry.
>
> > /* Grab the IOPTE we're interested in */
> > ptep += ARM_LPAE_LVL_IDX(iova, lvl, data);
> > @@ -711,22 +713,52 @@ static phys_addr_t arm_lpae_iova_to_phys(struct io_pgtable_ops *ops,
> >
> > /* Valid entry? */
> > if (!pte)
> > - return 0;
> > + return -EFAULT;
>
> Same here (and at the end of the function).
>
> > +
> > + ret = cb(cb_data, &pte, lvl);
>
> Since pte is on the stack, rather than pointing into the actual pgtable,
> I think it would be clearer to pass it by value to the callback.
fwiw, I passed it as a void* to avoid the pte size.. although I guess
it could be a union of all the possible pte types
BR,
-R
>
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> >
> > - /* Leaf entry? */
> > + /* Leaf entry? If so, we've found the translation */
> > if (iopte_leaf(pte, lvl, data->iop.fmt))
> > - goto found_translation;
> > + return 0;
> >
> > /* Take it to the next level */
> > ptep = iopte_deref(pte, data);
> > } while (++lvl < ARM_LPAE_MAX_LEVELS);
> >
> > /* Ran out of page tables to walk */
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > +}
> > +
> > +struct iova_to_phys_walk_data {
> > + arm_lpae_iopte pte;
> > + int level;
> > +};
>
> Expanding a little on Robin's suggestion, why don't we drop this structure
> in favour of something more generic:
>
> struct arm_lpae_walk_data {
> arm_lpae_iopte ptes[ARM_LPAE_MAX_LEVELS];
> };
>
> and then do something in the walker like:
>
> if (cb && !cb(pte, lvl))
> walk_data->ptes[lvl] = pte;
>
> which could return the physical address at the end, if it reaches a leaf
> entry. That way arm_lpae_iova_to_phys() is just passing a NULL callback
> to the walker and your debug callback just needs to return 0 (i.e. the
> callback is basically just saying whether or not to continue the walk).
>
> Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists