[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BL1PR11MB52713D3D5947C66AE463FA4B8C662@BL1PR11MB5271.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 00:52:22 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: "j.granados@...sung.com" <j.granados@...sung.com>, David Woodhouse
<dwmw2@...radead.org>, Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, Joerg Roedel
<joro@...tes.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Robin Murphy
<robin.murphy@....com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Klaus Jensen
<its@...elevant.dk>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/5] iommu/vt-d: Separate page request queue from SVM
> From: Joel Granados via B4 Relay
> <devnull+j.granados.samsung.com@...nel.org>
>
> From: Joel Granados <j.granados@...sung.com>
>
> IO page faults are no longer dependent on CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU_SVM.
> Move
> all Page Request Queue (PRQ) functions that handle prq events to a new
> file in drivers/iommu/intel/prq.c. The page_req_des struct is now
> declared in drivers/iommu/intel/prq.c.
>
> No functional changes are intended. This is a preparation patch to
> enable the use of IO page faults outside the SVM/PASID use cases.
Do we want to guard it under a new config option e.g.
CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU_IOPF? it's unnecessary to allocate resources
for the majority usages which don't require IOPF.
Baolu?
> -#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU_SVM
> if (pasid_supported(iommu)) {
> if (ecap_prs(iommu->ecap))
> - intel_svm_finish_prq(iommu);
> + intel_finish_prq(iommu);
> }
> -#endif
either intel_iommu_finish_prq() or intel_prq_finish().
same for other helpers.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists