Hi, On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 4:27 AM, Vivek Gautam > <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Sricharan R <sricharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Hi Vivek, >>>> >>>> On 7/13/2017 10:43 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote: >>>>> Hi Stephen, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 07/13/2017 04:24 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: >>>>>> On 07/06, Vivek Gautam wrote: >>>>>>> @@ -1231,12 +1237,18 @@ static int arm_smmu_map(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned long iova, >>>>>>> static size_t arm_smmu_unmap(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned long iova, >>>>>>> size_t size) >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> - struct io_pgtable_ops *ops = to_smmu_domain(domain)->pgtbl_ops; >>>>>>> + struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = to_smmu_domain(domain); >>>>>>> + struct io_pgtable_ops *ops = smmu_domain->pgtbl_ops; >>>>>>> + size_t ret; >>>>>>> if (!ops) >>>>>>> return 0; >>>>>>> - return ops->unmap(ops, iova, size); >>>>>>> + pm_runtime_get_sync(smmu_domain->smmu->dev); >>>>>> Can these map/unmap ops be called from an atomic context? I seem >>>>>> to recall that being a problem before. >>>>> >>>>> That's something which was dropped in the following patch merged in master: >>>>> 523d7423e21b iommu/arm-smmu: Remove io-pgtable spinlock >>>>> >>>>> Looks like we don't need locks here anymore? >>>> >>>> Apart from the locking, wonder why a explicit pm_runtime is needed >>>> from unmap. Somehow looks like some path in the master using that >>>> should have enabled the pm ? >>>> >>> >>> Yes, there are a bunch of scenarios where unmap can happen with >>> disabled master (but not in atomic context). >> >> I would like to understand whether there is a situation where an unmap is >> called in atomic context without an enabled master? >> >> Let's say we have the case where all the unmap calls in atomic context happen >> only from the master's context (in which case the device link should >> take care of >> the pm state of smmu), and the only unmap that happen in non-atomic context >> is the one with master disabled. In such a case doesn it make sense to >> distinguish >> the atomic/non-atomic context and add pm_runtime_get_sync()/put_sync() only >> for the non-atomic context since that would be the one with master disabled. >> > > At least drm/msm needs to hold obj->lock (a mutex) in unmap, so it > won't unmap anything in atomic ctx (but it can unmap w/ master > disabled). I can't really comment about other non-gpu drivers. It > seems like a reasonable constraint that either master is enabled or > not in atomic ctx. > > Currently we actually wrap unmap w/ pm_runtime_get/put_sync(), but I'd > like to drop that to avoid powering up the gpu. Since the deferring the TLB maintenance doesn't look like the best approach [1], how about if we try to power-up only the smmu from different client devices such as, GPU in the unmap path. Then we won't need to add pm_runtime_get/put() calls in arm_smmu_unmap(). The client device can use something like - pm_runtime_get_supplier() since we already have the device link in place with this patch series. This should power-on the supplier (which is smmu) without turning on the consumer (such as GPU). pm_runtime_get_supplier() however is not exported at this moment. Will it be useful to export this API and use it in the drivers. Adding Rafael J. Wysocki for suggestions on pm_runtime_get_suppliers() API. [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9876489/ Best regards Vivek > > BR, > -R > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html