Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] iommu/s390: Fix duplicate domain attachments

Jason Gunthorpe
2022-09-28T13:32:26Z

On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 10:58:22AM +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-09-27 at 13:56 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 06:33:48PM +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> >
> > > Not sure what the non-MSI reservation is for? It does seem like x86_64
> > > also uses this for quite large ranges.
> >
> > There are lots of things that are unsuitable for DMA on x86 platforms,
> > unfortunately.. But yeah, I'm not sure either.
> >
> > > This is because I'm getting a map request for an IOVA in the reserved
> > > region.
> >
> > How come? iova_reserve_iommu_regions() reads the reserved regions and
> > loads them as reserved into the iovad which should cause
> > iommu_dma_alloc_iova() and alloc_iova_fast() to not return values in
> > those ranges.
> >
> > It all looks like it is supposed to work
> >
> > Did something go wrong in the initialization order perhaps?
> >
> > Jason
>
> It was of course a classic off-by-one, the table size is a number of
> entries but geometry.aperture_end seems to be the largest allowed IOVA.
> So we need:

Right, I dislike this naming usually 'end' means "start + length" and
'last' means "start + length - 1"

> Otherwise the first IOVA allocated is ZPCI_TABLE_SIZE_RT itself.
> Similarly we need the second reserved region if (zdev->end_dma <
> ZPCI_TABLE_SIZE_RT - 1). In your patch I think you had the
> MAX_DMA_TABLE_ADDR name right but would have also calculated the number
> of entries.

Make sense..

> On the other hand with the dma-iommu.c conversion it no longer makes
> sense to lower zdev->end_dma artificially, so at least on current
> machine LPARs we would end up with just a lower reserved region
> 0x0000000000000000 to 0x00000000ffffffff and can use IOVAs up to
> aperture_end.

So zdev->end_dma == MAX_DMA_TABLE_ADDR?

(and is zdev->end_dma and 'end' or 'last' ?)

Can you include this patch once you are happy with it, it nicely
tidies this series?

Thanks,
Jason