Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] iommu/vt-d: Remove the pasid present check in prq_event_thread

Yi Liu
2024-10-28T07:46:14Z

On 2024/10/16 05:08, Joel Granados wrote:
> From: Klaus Jensen <k.jensen@samsung.com>
>
> PASID is not strictly needed when handling a PRQ event; remove the check
> for the pasid present bit in the request. This change was not included
> in the creation of prq.c to emphasize the change in capability checks
> when handing PRQ events.
>
> Signed-off-by: Klaus Jensen <k.jensen@samsung.com>
> Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Granados <joel.granados@kernel.org>

looks like the PRQ draining is missed for the PRI usage. When a pasid
entry is destroyed, it might need to add helper similar to the
intel_drain_pasid_prq() to drain PRQ for the non-pasid usage.

> ---
> drivers/iommu/intel/prq.c | 12 +++---------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/prq.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/prq.c
> index d4f18eb46475..3c50c848893f 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/prq.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/prq.c
> @@ -223,18 +223,12 @@ static irqreturn_t prq_event_thread(int irq, void *d)
> req = &iommu->prq[head / sizeof(*req)];
> address = (u64)req->addr << VTD_PAGE_SHIFT;
>
> - if (unlikely(!req->pasid_present)) {
> - pr_err("IOMMU: %s: Page request without PASID\n",
> - iommu->name);
> -bad_req:
> - handle_bad_prq_event(iommu, req, QI_RESP_INVALID);
> - goto prq_advance;
> - }
> -
> if (unlikely(!is_canonical_address(address))) {
> pr_err("IOMMU: %s: Address is not canonical\n",
> iommu->name);
> - goto bad_req;
> +bad_req:
> + handle_bad_prq_event(iommu, req, QI_RESP_INVALID);
> + goto prq_advance;
> }
>
> if (unlikely(req->pm_req && (req->rd_req | req->wr_req))) {
>

--
Regards,
Yi Liu