Re: [PATCH 1/1] iommu/vt-d: Fix RID2PASID setup failure

[Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>]

On 2022/6/21 11:46, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 11:39 AM
>>
>> On 2022/6/21 10:54, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>> From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>>>> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 4:17 PM
>>>> @@ -2564,7 +2564,7 @@ static int domain_add_dev_info(struct
>>>> dmar_domain *domain, struct device *dev)
>>>>    			ret = intel_pasid_setup_second_level(iommu,
>>>> domain,
>>>>    					dev, PASID_RID2PASID);
>>>>    		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&iommu->lock, flags);
>>>> -		if (ret) {
>>>> +		if (ret && ret != -EBUSY) {
>>>>    			dev_err(dev, "Setup RID2PASID failed\n");
>>>>    			dmar_remove_one_dev_info(dev);
>>>>    			return ret;
>>>> --
>>>> 2.25.1
>>>
>>> It's cleaner to avoid this error at the first place, i.e. only do the
>>> setup when the first device is attached to the pasid table.
>>
>> The logic that identifies the first device might introduce additional
>> unnecessary complexity. Devices that share a pasid table are rare. I
>> even prefer to give up sharing tables so that the code can be
>> simpler.:-)
>>
> 
> It's not that complex if you simply move device_attach_pasid_table()
> out of intel_pasid_alloc_table(). Then do the setup if
> list_empty(&pasid_table->dev) and then attach device to the
> pasid table in domain_add_dev_info().

The pasid table is part of the device, hence a better place to
allocate/free the pasid table is in the device probe/release paths.
Things will become more complicated if we change relationship between
device and it's pasid table when attaching/detaching a domain. That's
the reason why I thought it was additional complexity.

--
Best regards,
baolu
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu