From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 09:35:01 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v3 4/6] iommu/io-pgtable-arm: add support for non-strict mode In-Reply-To: <5B7293E5.7040702@huawei.com> References: <1531376312-2192-1-git-send-email-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> <1531376312-2192-5-git-send-email-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> <89cc2201-99ab-3f3b-a2d1-1766515d4375@arm.com> <5B597628.2020103@huawei.com> <04239cfa-bcf2-a33a-e662-ebc75e66782b@arm.com> <1d24541340334954969c58980ef85444@HXTBJIDCEMVIW01.hxtcorp.net> <5B7293E5.7040702@huawei.com> Message-ID: <20180814083500.GA28101@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 04:33:41PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote: > On 2018/8/6 9:32, Yang, Shunyong wrote: > > On 2018/7/26 22:37, Robin Murphy wrote: > >> Because DMA code is not the only caller of iommu_map/unmap. It's > >> perfectly legal in the IOMMU API to partially unmap a previous mapping > >> such that a block entry needs to be split. The DMA API, however, is a > >> lot more constrined, and thus by construction the iommu-dma layer will > >> never generate a block-splitting iommu_unmap() except as a result of > >> illegal DMA API usage, and we obviously do not need to optimise for that > >> (you will get a warning about mismatched unmaps under dma-debug, but > >> it's a bit too expensive to police in the general case). > >> > > > > When I was reading the code around arm_lpae_split_blk_unmap(), I was > > curious in which scenario a block will be split. Now with your comments > > "Because DMA code is not the only caller of iommu_map/unmap", it seems > > depending on the user. > > > > Would you please explain this further? I mean besides DMA, which user > > will use iommu_map/umap and how it split a block. > > I also think that arm_lpae_split_blk_unmap() scenario is not exist, maybe > we should remove it, and give a warning for this wrong usage. Can't it happen with VFIO? Will