[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6c0710c3-cffb-48db-872d-96e2e836fbdd@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 12:26:46 +0530
From: Vasant Hegde <vasant.hegde@....com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: Sairaj Kodilkar <sarunkod@....com>, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, joro@...tes.org,
suravee.suthikulpanit@....com, ashish.kalra@....com, robin.murphy@....com,
will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] amd/iommu: Preserve domain ids inside the kdump
kernel
On 11/19/2025 7:13 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 04:20:28PM +0530, Vasant Hegde wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/amd/init.c b/drivers/iommu/amd/init.c
>>> index f2991c11867c..9375fba1071c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/amd/init.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/amd/init.c
>>> @@ -1136,9 +1136,13 @@ static void set_dte_bit(struct dev_table_entry *dte, u8 bit)
>>> static bool __reuse_device_table(struct amd_iommu *iommu)
>>> {
>>> struct amd_iommu_pci_seg *pci_seg = iommu->pci_seg;
>>> - u32 lo, hi, old_devtb_size;
>>> + struct dev_table_entry *old_dev_tbl_entry;
>>> + u32 lo, hi, old_devtb_size, devid;
>>> phys_addr_t old_devtb_phys;
>>> + u16 dom_id;
>>> + bool dte_v;
>>> u64 entry;
>>> + int ret;
>>>
>>> /* Each IOMMU use separate device table with the same size */
>>> lo = readl(iommu->mmio_base + MMIO_DEV_TABLE_OFFSET);
>>> @@ -1173,6 +1177,25 @@ static bool __reuse_device_table(struct amd_iommu *iommu)
>>> return false;
>>> }
>>>
>>> + for (devid = 0; devid <= pci_seg->last_bdf; devid++) {
>>> + old_dev_tbl_entry = &pci_seg->old_dev_tbl_cpy[devid];
>>> + dte_v = old_dev_tbl_entry->data[0] & DTE_FLAG_V;
>>> + dom_id = old_dev_tbl_entry->data[1] & DEV_DOMID_MASK;
>>> +
>>> + if (!dte_v || !dom_id)
>>> + continue;
>>> + /*
>>> + * ID reseveration can fail with -ENOSPC when there
>>> + * are multiple devices present in the same domain,
>>> + * hence check only for -ENOMEM.
>>> + */
>>> + ret = ida_alloc_range(&pdom_ids, dom_id, dom_id, GFP_ATOMIC);
>
> Is it really an atomic context? Why?
I had to dig git history to figureout why I used GFP_ATOMIC for ida allocator.
When we moved to ida allocator we used GPF_ATOMIC as there were paths were code
was holding spinlock before calling ida allocator.
Now that those paths are moved to mutex lock and remvoed redundant locks, I
think its fine to change it to GFP_KERNEL.
-Vasant
Powered by blists - more mailing lists