From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
To: Vasant Hegde <vasant.hegde@amd.com>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
Cc: baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
Longfang Liu <liulongfang@huawei.com>,
"Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>,
Joel Granados <j.granados@samsung.com>,
"iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 13/16] iommu: Improve iopf_queue_remove_device()
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:32:05 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9577ec59-fa05-4eea-b0ae-312d9531ce61@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f856519f-419c-1901-b8bc-3e338873157f@amd.com>
On 2024/2/8 1:59, Vasant Hegde wrote:
> Hi Baolu,
>
> On 2/7/2024 5:59 PM, Baolu Lu wrote:
>> On 2024/2/7 10:50, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>> From: Lu Baolu<baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 9:33 AM
>>>>
>>>> Convert iopf_queue_remove_device() to return void instead of an error code,
>>>> as the return value is never used. This removal helper is designed to be
>>>> never-failed, so there's no need for error handling.
>>>>
>>>> Ack all outstanding page requests from the device with the response code of
>>>> IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_INVALID, indicating device should not attempt any retry.
>>>>
>>>> Add comments to this helper explaining the steps involved in removing a
>>>> device from the iopf queue and disabling its PRI. The individual drivers
>>>> are expected to be adjusted accordingly. Here we just define the expected
>>>> behaviors of the individual iommu driver from the core's perspective.
>>>>
>>>> Suggested-by: Jason Gunthorpe<jgg@nvidia.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu<baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe<jgg@nvidia.com>
>>>> Tested-by: Yan Zhao<yan.y.zhao@intel.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian<kevin.tian@intel.com>, with one nit:
>>>
>>>> + * Removing a device from an iopf_queue. It's recommended to follow
>>>> these
>>>> + * steps when removing a device:
>>>> *
>>>> - * Return: 0 on success and <0 on error.
>>>> + * - Disable new PRI reception: Turn off PRI generation in the IOMMU
>>>> hardware
>>>> + * and flush any hardware page request queues. This should be done
>>>> before
>>>> + * calling into this helper.
>>>> + * - Acknowledge all outstanding PRQs to the device: Respond to all
>>>> outstanding
>>>> + * page requests with IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_INVALID, indicating the device
>>>> should
>>>> + * not retry. This helper function handles this.
>>> this implies calling iopf_queue_remove_device() here.
>>>
>>>> + * - Disable PRI on the device: After calling this helper, the caller could
>>>> + * then disable PRI on the device.
>>>> + * - Call iopf_queue_remove_device(): Calling iopf_queue_remove_device()
>>>> + * essentially disassociates the device. The fault_param might still exist,
>>>> + * but iommu_page_response() will do nothing. The device fault parameter
>>>> + * reference count has been properly passed from
>>>> iommu_report_device_fault()
>>>> + * to the fault handling work, and will eventually be released after
>>>> + * iommu_page_response().
>>>> */
>>> but here it suggests calling iopf_queue_remove_device() again. If the comment
>>> is just about to detail the behavior with that invocation shouldn't it be merged
>>> with the previous one instead of pretending to be the final step for driver
>>> to call?
>>
>> Above just explains the behavior of calling iopf_queue_remove_device().
>
> Can you please leave a line -OR- move this to previous para? Otherwise we will
> get confused.
Sure. I will make it look like below.
/**
* iopf_queue_remove_device - Remove producer from fault queue
* @queue: IOPF queue
* @dev: device to remove
*
* Removing a device from an iopf_queue. It's recommended to follow these
* steps when removing a device:
*
* - Disable new PRI reception: Turn off PRI generation in the IOMMU
hardware
* and flush any hardware page request queues. This should be done before
* calling into this helper.
* - Acknowledge all outstanding PRQs to the device: Respond to all
outstanding
* page requests with IOMMU_PAGE_RESP_INVALID, indicating the device
should
* not retry. This helper function handles this.
* - Disable PRI on the device: After calling this helper, the caller could
* then disable PRI on the device.
*
* Calling iopf_queue_remove_device() essentially disassociates the device.
* The fault_param might still exist, but iommu_page_response() will do
* nothing. The device fault parameter reference count has been properly
* passed from iommu_report_device_fault() to the fault handling work, and
* will eventually be released after iommu_page_response().
*/
Best regards,
baolu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-08 1:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-07 1:33 [PATCH v12 00/16] iommu: Prepare to deliver page faults to user space Lu Baolu
2024-02-07 1:33 ` [PATCH v12 01/16] iommu: Move iommu fault data to linux/iommu.h Lu Baolu
2024-02-07 1:33 ` [PATCH v12 02/16] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Remove unrecoverable faults reporting Lu Baolu
2024-02-07 1:33 ` [PATCH v12 03/16] iommu: Remove unrecoverable fault data Lu Baolu
2024-02-07 1:33 ` [PATCH v12 04/16] iommu: Cleanup iopf data structure definitions Lu Baolu
2024-02-07 1:33 ` [PATCH v12 05/16] iommu: Merge iopf_device_param into iommu_fault_param Lu Baolu
2024-02-07 1:33 ` [PATCH v12 06/16] iommu: Remove iommu_[un]register_device_fault_handler() Lu Baolu
2024-02-07 1:33 ` [PATCH v12 07/16] iommu: Merge iommu_fault_event and iopf_fault Lu Baolu
2024-02-07 1:33 ` [PATCH v12 08/16] iommu: Prepare for separating SVA and IOPF Lu Baolu
2024-02-07 1:33 ` [PATCH v12 09/16] iommu: Make iommu_queue_iopf() more generic Lu Baolu
2024-02-07 1:33 ` [PATCH v12 10/16] iommu: Separate SVA and IOPF Lu Baolu
2024-02-07 1:33 ` [PATCH v12 11/16] iommu: Refine locking for per-device fault data management Lu Baolu
2024-02-07 1:33 ` [PATCH v12 12/16] iommu: Use refcount for fault data access Lu Baolu
2024-02-07 1:33 ` [PATCH v12 13/16] iommu: Improve iopf_queue_remove_device() Lu Baolu
2024-02-07 2:50 ` Tian, Kevin
2024-02-07 12:29 ` Baolu Lu
2024-02-07 17:59 ` Vasant Hegde
2024-02-08 1:32 ` Baolu Lu [this message]
2024-02-08 5:06 ` Vasant Hegde
2024-02-07 1:33 ` [PATCH v12 14/16] iommu: Track iopf group instead of last fault Lu Baolu
2024-02-07 1:33 ` [PATCH v12 15/16] iommu: Make iopf_group_response() return void Lu Baolu
2024-02-07 1:33 ` [PATCH v12 16/16] iommu: Make iommu_report_device_fault() " Lu Baolu
2024-02-08 9:11 ` [PATCH v12 00/16] iommu: Prepare to deliver page faults to user space Zhangfei Gao
[not found] ` <CABQgh9H02z+uHg_hYnoVZURz7PLeYW_41MwxciE6W+kPRgEHsw@mail.gmail.com>
2024-02-09 2:39 ` Baolu Lu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9577ec59-fa05-4eea-b0ae-312d9531ce61@linux.intel.com \
--to=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=j.granados@samsung.com \
--cc=jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jean-philippe@linaro.org \
--cc=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liulongfang@huawei.com \
--cc=nicolinc@nvidia.com \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=vasant.hegde@amd.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yan.y.zhao@intel.com \
--cc=yi.l.liu@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox