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

Yi Liu
2024-10-29T05:09:07Z

On 2024/10/29 11:12, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 2024/10/28 18:24, Joel Granados wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 03:50:46PM +0800, Yi Liu wrote:
>>> 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.
>> These types of user space PRIs (non-pasid, non-svm) are created by
>> making use of iommufd_hwpt_replace_device. Which adds an entry to the
>> pasid_array indexed on IOMMU_NO_PASID (0U) via the following path:
>>
>> iommufd_hwpt_replace_device
>>    -> iommufd_fault_domain_repalce_dev
>>      -> __fault_domain_replace_dev
>>        -> iommu_replace_group_handle
>            -> __iommu_group_set_domain
>              -> intel_iommu_attach_device
>                 -> device_block_translation
>                   -> intel_pasid_tear_down_entry(IOMMU_NO_PASID)
>
> Here a domain is removed from the pasid entry, hence we need to flush
> all page requests that are pending in the IOMMU page request queue or
> the PCI fabric.
>
>>          -> xa_reserve(&group->pasid_array, IOMMU_NO_PASID, GFP_KERNEL);
>>
>> It is my understanding that this will provide the needed relation
>> between the device and the prq in such a way that when  remove_dev_pasid
>> is called, intel_iommu_drain_pasid_prq will be called with the
>> appropriate pasid value set to IOMMU_NO_PASID. Please correct me if I'm
>> mistaken.
>
> Removing a domain from a RID and a PASID are different paths.
> Previously, this IOMMU driver only supported page requests on PASID
> (non-IOMMU_NO_PASID). It is acceptable that it does not flush the PRQ in
> the domain-removing RID path.
>
> With the changes made in this series, the driver now supports page
> requests for RID. It should also flush the PRQ when removing a domain
> from a PASID entry for IOMMU_NO_PASID.
>
>>
>> Does this answer your question? Do you have a specific path that you are
>> looking at where a specific non-pasid drain is needed?
>
> Perhaps we can simply add below change.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
> index e860bc9439a2..a24a42649621 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
> @@ -4283,7 +4283,6 @@ static void intel_iommu_remove_dev_pasid(struct
> device *dev, ioasid_t pasid,
>         intel_iommu_debugfs_remove_dev_pasid(dev_pasid);
>         kfree(dev_pasid);
>         intel_pasid_tear_down_entry(iommu, dev, pasid, false);
> -       intel_drain_pasid_prq(dev, pasid);
>  }
>
>  static int intel_iommu_set_dev_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.c
> index 2e5fa0a23299..8639f3eb4264 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.c
> @@ -265,6 +265,7 @@ void intel_pasid_tear_down_entry(struct intel_iommu
> *iommu, struct device *dev,
>                 iommu->flush.flush_iotlb(iommu, did, 0, 0,
> DMA_TLB_DSI_FLUSH);
>
>         devtlb_invalidation_with_pasid(iommu, dev, pasid);
> +       intel_drain_pasid_prq(dev, pasid);
>  }
>
>  /*
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/svm.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/svm.c
> index 078d1e32a24e..ff88f31053d1 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/svm.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/svm.c
> @@ -304,9 +304,6 @@ void intel_drain_pasid_prq(struct device *dev, u32 pasid)
>         int qdep;
>
>         info = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
> -       if (WARN_ON(!info || !dev_is_pci(dev)))
> -               return;
> -
>         if (!info->pri_enabled)
>                 return;
>
> Generally, intel_drain_pasid_prq() should be called if
>
> - a translation is removed from a pasid entry; and
> - PRI on this device is enabled.

If the @pasid==IOMMU_NO_PASID, PRQ drain should use the iotlb invalidation
and dev-tlb invalidation descriptors. So extra code change is needed in
intel_drain_pasid_prq(). Or perhaps it's better to have a separate helper
for draining prq for non-pasid case.

--
Regards,
Yi Liu