> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 9:48 PM
>
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 07:41:05AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > +/**
> > > + * struct iommu_hwpt_vtd_s1_invalidate - Intel VT-d cache invalidation
> > > + * (IOMMU_HWPT_TYPE_VTD_S1)
> > > + * @flags: Must be 0
> > > + * @entry_size: Size in bytes of each cache invalidation request
> > > + * @entry_nr_uptr: User pointer to the number of invalidation requests.
> > > + * Kernel reads it to get the number of requests and
> > > + * updates the buffer with the number of requests that
> > > + * have been processed successfully. This pointer must
> > > + * point to a __u32 type of memory location.
> > > + * @inv_data_uptr: Pointer to the cache invalidation requests
> > > + *
> > > + * The Intel VT-d specific invalidation data for a set of cache invalidation
> > > + * requests. Kernel loops the requests one-by-one and stops when
> failure
> > > + * is encountered. The number of handled requests is reported to user
> by
> > > + * writing the buffer pointed by @entry_nr_uptr.
> > > + */
> > > +struct iommu_hwpt_vtd_s1_invalidate {
> > > + __u32 flags;
> > > + __u32 entry_size;
> > > + __aligned_u64 entry_nr_uptr;
> > > + __aligned_u64 inv_data_uptr;
> > > +};
> > > +
> >
> > I wonder whether this array can be defined directly in the common
> > struct iommu_hwpt_invalidate so there is no need for underlying
> > iommu driver to further deal with user buffers, including various
> > minsz/backward compat. check.
>
> You want to have an array and another chunk of data?
>
> What is the array for? To do batching?
yes, it's for batching
>
> It means we have to allocate memory on this path, that doesn't seem
> like the right direction for a performance improvement..
It reuses the ucmd_buffer to avoid memory allocation:
@@ -485,6 +485,12 @@ union ucmd_buffer {
#ifdef CONFIG_IOMMUFD_TEST
struct iommu_test_cmd test;
#endif
+ /*
+ * hwpt_type specific structure used in the cache invalidation
+ * path.
+ */
+ struct iommu_hwpt_vtd_s1_invalidate vtd;
+ struct iommu_hwpt_vtd_s1_invalidate_desc req_vtd;
};
I don't quite like this way.
>
> Having the driver copy in a loop might be better
>
Can you elaborate?
