Re: [PATCH 2/3] iommu/vt-d: Clear Present bit before tearing down PASID entry

[Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>]

On 1/14/26 19:12, Dmytro Maluka wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 01:38:13PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
>> On 1/14/26 03:34, Dmytro Maluka wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 11:00:47AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
>>>> +	intel_pasid_clear_entry(iommu, dev, pasid, fault_ignore);
>>> Is it safe to do this with iommu->lock already unlocked?
>>
>> Yes, it is. The PASID entry lifecycle is serialized by the iommu_group-
>>> mutex in the iommu core, which ensures that no other thread can attempt
>> to allocate or setup this same PASID until intel_pasid_tear_down_entry()
>> has returned.
>>
>> The iommu->lock is held during the initial transition (P->0) to ensure
>> atomicity against other hardware-table walkers, but once the P bit is
>> cleared and the caches are flushed, the final zeroing of the 'dead'
>> entry does not strictly require the spinlock because the PASID remains
>> reserved in software until the function completes.
> 
> Ok. Just to understand: "other hardware-table walkers" means some
> software walkers, not hardware ones? Which software walkers are those?
> (I can't imagine how holding a spinlock could prevent the hardware from
> walking those tables. :))

You are right. A spinlock doesn't stop the hardware. The spinlock
serializes software threads to ensure the hardware walker always sees a
consistent entry.

When a PASID entry is active (P=1), other kernel paths might modify
the control bits in-place. For example:

void intel_pasid_setup_page_snoop_control(struct intel_iommu *iommu,
                                           struct device *dev, u32 pasid)
{
         struct pasid_entry *pte;
         u16 did;

         spin_lock(&iommu->lock);
         pte = intel_pasid_get_entry(dev, pasid);
         if (WARN_ON(!pte || !pasid_pte_is_present(pte))) {
                 spin_unlock(&iommu->lock);
                 return;
         }

         pasid_set_pgsnp(pte);
         did = pasid_get_domain_id(pte);
         spin_unlock(&iommu->lock);

         intel_pasid_flush_present(iommu, dev, pasid, did, pte);
}

In this case, the iommu->lock ensures that if two threads try to modify
the same active entry, they don't interfere with each other and leave
the entry in a 'torn' state for the IOMMU hardware to read.

In intel_pasid_tear_down_entry(), once the PASID entry is deactivated
(setting P=0 and flushing caches), the entry is owned exclusively  by
the teardown thread until it is re-configured. That's the reason why the
final zeroing doesn't need the spinlock.

Thanks,
baolu