Hi Jason,
On Tue, 24 May 2022 15:02:41 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 09:12:35AM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > Hi Jason,
> >
> > On Tue, 24 May 2022 10:51:35 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 11:21:17AM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > > > On VT-d platforms with scalable mode enabled, devices issue DMA
> > > > requests with PASID need to attach PASIDs to given IOMMU domains.
> > > > The attach operation involves the following:
> > > > - Programming the PASID into the device's PASID table
> > > > - Tracking device domain and the PASID relationship
> > > > - Managing IOTLB and device TLB invalidations
> > > >
> > > > This patch add attach_dev_pasid functions to the default domain ops
> > > > which is used by DMA and identity domain types. It could be
> > > > extended to support other domain types whenever necessary.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c | 72
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 70
> > > > insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
> > > > b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c index 1c2c92b657c7..75615c105fdf
> > > > 100644 +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
> > > > @@ -1556,12 +1556,18 @@ static void __iommu_flush_dev_iotlb(struct
> > > > device_domain_info *info, u64 addr, unsigned int mask)
> > > > {
> > > > u16 sid, qdep;
> > > > + ioasid_t pasid;
> > > >
> > > > if (!info || !info->ats_enabled)
> > > > return;
> > > >
> > > > sid = info->bus << 8 | info->devfn;
> > > > qdep = info->ats_qdep;
> > > > + pasid = iommu_get_pasid_from_domain(info->dev,
> > > > &info->domain->domain);
> > >
> > > No, a simgple domain can be attached to multiple pasids, all need to
> > > be flushed.
> > >
> > Here is device TLB flush, why would I want to flush PASIDs other than my
> > own device attached?
>
> Again, a domain can be attached to multiple PASID's *on the same
> device*
>
> The idea that there is only one PASID per domain per device is not
> right.
>
Got you, I was under the impression that there is no use case yet for
multiple PASIDs per device-domain based on our early discussion.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220315142216.GV11336@xxxxxxxxxx/
Perhaps I misunderstood. I will make the API more future proof and search
through the pasid_array xa for *all* domain-device matches. Like you
suggested earlier, may need to retrieve the xa in the first place and use
xas_for_each to get a faster search.
Thanks,
Jacob
