Re: [PATCH RFC 04/11] iommu/vt-d: Add SVA domain support

Lu Baolu
2022-03-22T04:26:06Z

On 2022/3/21 19:56, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 02:40:23PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
>> Add support for SVA domain allocation and provide an SVA-specific
>> iommu_domain_ops.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>> include/linux/intel-iommu.h | 1 +
>> drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>> drivers/iommu/intel/svm.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 3 files changed, 47 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/intel-iommu.h b/include/linux/intel-iommu.h
>> index 2f9891cb3d00..c14283137fb5 100644
>> +++ b/include/linux/intel-iommu.h
>> @@ -744,6 +744,7 @@ void intel_svm_unbind(struct iommu_sva *handle);
>> u32 intel_svm_get_pasid(struct iommu_sva *handle);
>> int intel_svm_page_response(struct device *dev, struct iommu_fault_event *evt,
>> struct iommu_page_response *msg);
>> +extern const struct iommu_domain_ops intel_svm_domain_ops;
>>
>> struct intel_svm_dev {
>> struct list_head list;
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
>> index c1b91bce1530..d55dca3eacf8 100644
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
>> @@ -4318,6 +4318,18 @@ static struct iommu_domain *intel_iommu_domain_alloc(unsigned type)
>> return domain;
>> case IOMMU_DOMAIN_IDENTITY:
>> return &si_domain->domain;
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU_SVM
>> + case IOMMU_DOMAIN_SVA:
>> + dmar_domain = alloc_domain(type);
>> + if (!dmar_domain) {
>> + pr_err("Can't allocate sva domain\n");
>
> Don't put random pr_err's/etc in drivers. At least try to use dev_err
>
>> + return NULL;
>> + }
>> + domain = &dmar_domain->domain;
>> + domain->ops = &intel_svm_domain_ops;
>> +
>> + return domain;
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU_SVM */
>> default:
>> return NULL;
>> }
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/svm.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/svm.c
>> index ee5ecde5b318..b9f4dd7057d1 100644
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/svm.c
>> @@ -932,3 +932,37 @@ int intel_svm_page_response(struct device *dev,
>> mutex_unlock(&pasid_mutex);
>> return ret;
>> }
>> +
>> +static int intel_svm_attach_dev_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>> + struct device *dev, ioasid_t pasid)
>> +{
>> + struct device_domain_info *info = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
>> + struct mm_struct *mm = domain->sva_cookie;
>> + struct intel_iommu *iommu = info->iommu;
>> + struct iommu_sva *sva;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&pasid_mutex);
>> + sva = intel_svm_bind_mm(iommu, dev, mm);
>> + mutex_unlock(&pasid_mutex);
>> +
>> + return IS_ERR_OR_NULL(sva);
>
> Never use IS_ERR_OR_NULL(), fix whatever is wrong in intel_svm_bind_mm()
> that it can return NULL on failure.
>
>> +const struct iommu_domain_ops intel_svm_domain_ops = {
>> + .attach_dev_pasid = intel_svm_attach_dev_pasid,
>> + .detach_dev_pasid = intel_svm_detach_dev_pasid,
>
> Lets have consistent language either this is called SVA or SVM but not
> both.

Thanks a lot for above comments. All make sense to me.

Best regards,
baolu