Re: [PATCH v5 01/12] iommu: Introduce a replace API for device pasid

Baolu Lu
2024-11-05T08:15:03Z

On 2024/11/5 16:10, Yi Liu wrote:
> On 2024/11/5 15:57, Baolu Lu wrote:
>> On 2024/11/5 15:49, Yi Liu wrote:
>>> On 2024/11/5 11:58, Baolu Lu wrote:
>>>> On 11/4/24 21:25, Yi Liu wrote:
>>>>> +/**
>>>>> + * iommu_replace_device_pasid - Replace the domain that a pasid is
>>>>> attached to
>>>>> + * @domain: the new iommu domain
>>>>> + * @dev: the attached device.
>>>>> + * @pasid: the pasid of the device.
>>>>> + * @handle: the attach handle.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * This API allows the pasid to switch domains. Return 0 on
>>>>> success, or an
>>>>> + * error. The pasid will keep the old configuration if replacement
>>>>> failed.
>>>>> + * This is supposed to be used by iommufd, and iommufd can
>>>>> guarantee that
>>>>> + * both iommu_attach_device_pasid() and
>>>>> iommu_replace_device_pasid() would
>>>>> + * pass in a valid @handle.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +int iommu_replace_device_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>>>>> +                   struct device *dev, ioasid_t pasid,
>>>>> +                   struct iommu_attach_handle *handle)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    /* Caller must be a probed driver on dev */
>>>>> +    struct iommu_group *group = dev->iommu_group;
>>>>> +    struct iommu_attach_handle *curr;
>>>>> +    int ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    if (!domain->ops->set_dev_pasid)
>>>>> +        return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    if (!group)
>>>>> +        return -ENODEV;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    if (!dev_has_iommu(dev) || dev_iommu_ops(dev) != domain->owner ||
>>>>> +        pasid == IOMMU_NO_PASID || !handle)
>>>>> +        return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    handle->domain = domain;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    mutex_lock(&group->mutex);
>>>>> +    /*
>>>>> +     * The iommu_attach_handle of the pasid becomes inconsistent
>>>>> with the
>>>>> +     * actual handle per the below operation. The concurrent PRI
>>>>> path will
>>>>> +     * deliver the PRQs per the new handle, this does not have a
>>>>> functional
>>>>> +     * impact. The PRI path would eventually become consistent
>>>>> when the
>>>>> +     * replacement is done.
>>>>> +     */
>>>>> +    curr = (struct iommu_attach_handle *)xa_store(&group-
>>>>> >pasid_array,
>>>>> +                              pasid, handle,
>>>>> +                              GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>
>>>> The iommu drivers can only flush pending PRs in the hardware queue when
>>>> __iommu_set_group_pasid() is called. So, it appears more reasonable to
>>>> reorder things like this:
>>>>
>>>>      __iommu_set_group_pasid();
>>>>      switch_attach_handle();
>>>>
>>>> Or anything I overlooked?
>>>
>>> not quite get why this handle is related to iommu driver flushing PRs.
>>> Before __iommu_set_group_pasid(), the pasid is still attached with the
>>> old domain, so is the hw configuration.
>>
>> I meant that in the path of __iommu_set_group_pasid(), the iommu drivers
>> have the opportunity to flush the PRs pending in the hardware queue. If
>> the attach_handle is switched (by calling xa_store()) before
>> __iommu_set_group_pasid(), the pending PRs will be routed to iopf
>> handler of the new domain, which is not desirable.
>
> I see. You mean the handling of PRQs. I was interpreting you are talking
> about PRQ draining.
>
> yet, what you described was discussed before [1]. Forwarding PRQs to the
> new domain looks to be ok.
>
> But you reminded me one thing. What I cared about more is the case
> replacing an iopf-capable domain to non-capable domain. This means the new
> coming PRQs would be responded by iopf_error_response(). Do you see an
> issue here?

I am not sure, but it will be more reasonable if you can make it in the
right order. If that's impossible, then add some comments to explain it.

--
baolu