From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean-Philippe Brucker Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/37] iommu/sva: Manage process address spaces Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 11:59:29 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20180212183352.22730-1-jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com> <20180212183352.22730-4-jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com> <04d4d161-ed72-f6b6-9b94-1d60bd79ef94@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <04d4d161-ed72-f6b6-9b94-1d60bd79ef94-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org> Content-Language: en-US List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Sinan Kaya , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , "linux-pci-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-acpi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org" , "kvm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" Cc: Mark Rutland , "ilias.apalodimas-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" , Catalin Marinas , "xuzaibo-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , Will Deacon , "ashok.raj-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org" , "bharatku-gjFFaj9aHVfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , "rfranz-YGCgFSpz5w/QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , "lenb-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" , "robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" , "bhelgaas-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , "dwmw2-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org" , "rjw-LthD3rsA81gm4RdzfppkhA@public.gmane.org" , Sudeep Holla , "christian.koenig-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 10/04/18 19:53, Sinan Kaya wrote: > On 2/12/2018 1:33 PM, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: >> +static void io_mm_detach_all_locked(struct iommu_bond *bond) >> +{ >> + while (!io_mm_detach_locked(bond)); >> +} >> + > > I don't remember if I mentioned this before or not but I think this loop > needs a little bit relaxation with yield and maybe an informational message > with might help if wait exceeds some time. Right, at the very least we should have a cpu_relax here. I think this bit is going away, though, because I want to lift the possibility of calling bind() for the same dev/mm pair multiple times. It's not useful in my opinion because that call could only be issued by a given driver. Thanks, Jean