From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc: <kevin.tian@intel.com>, <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
<iommu@lists.linux.dev>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] iommufd: Add devices_users to track the hw_pagetable usage by device
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 09:46:23 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y9qlb0SZWEpJs0v1@Asurada-Nvidia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y9qK3nJHjU4Bvxaf@nvidia.com>
On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 11:53:02AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 10:57:13PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 04:35:35PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >
> > > IMHO I would structure the smmu driver so that all the different
> > > iommu_domain formats have their own ops pointer. The special
> > > "undecided" format would have a special ops with only attach_dev and
> > > at first attach it would switch the ops to whatever format it
> > > selected.
> > >
> > > I think this could get rid of a lot of the 'if undecided/S1/S2/CD'
> > > complexity all over the place. You know what type it is because you
> > > were called on a op that is only called on its type.
> >
> > An auto/unmanaged domain allocation via iommu_domain_alloc() would
> > be S1, while an allocation via ops->domain_alloc_user can be S1 or
> > S2 with a given parameter/flag. So, actually the format is always
> > decided.
>
> No, it can't decide the S1/S2 format until it knows the smmu because
> of this:
>
> /* Restrict the stage to what we can actually support */
> if (!(smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_TRANS_S1))
> smmu_domain->stage = ARM_SMMU_DOMAIN_S2;
> if (!(smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_TRANS_S2))
> smmu_domain->stage = ARM_SMMU_DOMAIN_S1;
>
> So the format is never decided.
OK. That's right. And the solution to that is also passing a dev
pointer in regular ->domain_alloc() op.
> > that we don't pass the dev pointer down to ops->domain_alloc. So,
> > the SMMU driver can't know which SMMU device the device is behind,
> > resulting in being unable to finalizing the domain. Robin mentioned
> > that he has a patch "iommu: Pass device through ops->domain_alloc".
> > Perhaps that is required for us to entirely fix the add_domain()
> > problem?
>
> Robin is making progress, hopefully soon
>
> So the issue is with replace you need to have the domain populated
> before we can call replace but you can't populate the domain until it
> is bound because of the above issue? That seems unsovlable without
> fixing up the driver.
Not really. A REPLACE ioctl is just an ATTACH, if the device just
gets BIND-ed. So the SMMU driver will initialize ("finalise") the
domain during the replace() call, then iopt_table_add_domain() can
be done.
So, not a blocker here.
> I'd say replace can go ahead ingoring that issue and that for now
> replace will only work on ARM with domains created by
> domain_alloc_user that are fully configured.
>
> It will start working correctly for auto domains once Robin's changes
> get finished.
>
> Is there another issue?
Oh. I think we mixed the topics here. These three patches were
not to unblock but to clean up a way for the replace series and
the nesting series, for the device locking issue:
if (cur_hwpt != hwpt)
mutex_lock(&cur_hwpt->device_lock);
mutex_lock(&hwpt->device_lock);
...
if (iommufd_hw_pagetabe_has_group()) { // touching device list
...
iommu_group_replace_domain();
...
}
if (cur_hwpt && hwpt)
list_del(&idev->devices_item);
list_add(&idev->devices_item, &cur_hwpt->devices);
...
mutex_unlock(&hwpt->device_lock);
if (cur_hwpt != hwpt)
mutex_unlock(&cur_hwpt->device_lock);
I just gave another thought about it. Since we have the patch-2
from this series moving the ioas->mutex, it already serializes
attach/detach routines. And I see that all the places touching
idev->device_item and hwpt->devices are protected by ioas->mutex.
So, perhaps we can simply remove the device_lock?
do_attach():
mutex_lock(&ioas->mutex); // protect both devices_item and hwpt_item
...
if (iommufd_hw_pagetabe_has_group()) { // touching device list
...
iommu_group_replace_domain();
...
}
if (cur_hwpt && hwpt)
list_del(&idev->devices_item);
list_add(&idev->devices_item, &cur_hwpt->devices);
...
mutex_unlock(&ioas->mutex);
do_detach():
mutex_lock(&ioas->mutex); // protect both devices_item and hwpt_item
...
if (iommufd_hw_pagetabe_has_group()) { // touching device list
...
iommu_detach_group();
...
}
list_del(&idev->devices_item);
...
mutex_unlock(&ioas->mutex);
If this is correct, I think I can prepare the replace series and
send it by the end of the day.
Thanks
Nic
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-01 17:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-28 21:18 [PATCH v2 0/3] iommufd: Remove iommufd_hw_pagetable_has_group Nicolin Chen
2023-01-28 21:18 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] iommufd: Add devices_users to track the hw_pagetable usage by device Nicolin Chen
2023-01-29 9:23 ` Tian, Kevin
2023-01-29 9:30 ` Nicolin Chen
2023-01-29 9:39 ` Tian, Kevin
2023-01-30 2:22 ` Liu, Yi L
2023-01-30 15:02 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-01-30 19:27 ` Nicolin Chen
2023-01-30 19:50 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-01-30 20:04 ` Nicolin Chen
2023-01-30 20:35 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-01-30 20:53 ` Nicolin Chen
2023-02-01 7:48 ` Nicolin Chen
2023-02-02 9:12 ` Nicolin Chen
2023-02-07 4:19 ` Liu, Yi L
2023-02-01 6:57 ` Nicolin Chen
2023-02-01 7:56 ` Nicolin Chen
2023-02-01 15:53 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-02-01 17:46 ` Nicolin Chen [this message]
2023-02-01 18:37 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-02-01 19:25 ` Nicolin Chen
2023-02-01 20:00 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-02-01 21:18 ` Nicolin Chen
2023-02-02 7:28 ` Nicolin Chen
2023-02-02 15:03 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-02-07 4:27 ` Liu, Yi L
2023-01-28 21:18 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] iommufd/device: Make hwpt_list list_add/del symmetric Nicolin Chen
2023-01-29 9:24 ` Tian, Kevin
2023-01-29 9:31 ` Nicolin Chen
2023-01-30 14:59 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-01-30 19:03 ` Nicolin Chen
2023-01-30 19:07 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-01-30 19:38 ` Nicolin Chen
2023-01-28 21:18 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] iommufd/device: Change iommufd_hw_pagetable_has_group to device centric Nicolin Chen
2023-01-29 9:37 ` Tian, Kevin
2023-01-29 10:38 ` Nicolin Chen
2023-01-30 0:44 ` Tian, Kevin
2023-01-30 10:22 ` Nicolin Chen
2023-02-01 3:07 ` Tian, Kevin
2023-02-01 6:49 ` Baolu Lu
2023-02-01 6:59 ` Tian, Kevin
2023-02-01 7:20 ` Nicolin Chen
2023-02-02 6:32 ` Tian, Kevin
2023-02-02 6:36 ` Nicolin Chen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Y9qlb0SZWEpJs0v1@Asurada-Nvidia \
--to=nicolinc@nvidia.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yi.l.liu@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox