On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 10:48:10AM +0800, Yan Zhao wrote: > On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 04:46:14PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 11:37:34PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 01:00:16PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > > Err, no. There should really be no exported cache manipulation macros, > > > > > > as drivers are almost guaranteed to get this wrong. I've added > > > > > > Russell to the Cc list who has been extremtly vocal about this at least > > > > > > for arm. > > > > > > > > > > We could possibly move this under some IOMMU core API (ie flush and > > > > > map, unmap and flush), the iommu APIs are non-modular so this could > > > > > avoid the exported symbol. > > > > > > > > Though this would be pretty difficult for unmap as we don't have the > > > > pfns in the core code to flush. I don't think we have alot of good > > > > options but to make iommufd & VFIO handle this directly as they have > > > > the list of pages to flush on the unmap side. Use a namespace? > > > > > > Just have a unmap version that also takes a list of PFNs that you'd > > > need for non-coherent mappings? > > > > VFIO has never supported that so nothing like that exists yet.. This > > is sort of the first steps to some very basic support for a > > non-coherent cache flush in a limited case of a VM that can do its own > > cache flushing through kvm. > > > > The pfn list is needed for unpin_user_pages() and it has an ugly > > design where vfio/iommufd read back the pfns seperately from unmap, > > and they both do it differently without a common range list > > datastructure here. > > > > So, we'd need to build some new unmap function that returns a pfn list > > that it internally fetches via the read ops. Then it can do the read, > > unmap, flush iotlb, flush cache in core code. > Would the core code flush CPU caches by providing page physical address? Physical address is all we will have in the core code.. > If yes, do you think it's still necessary to export arch_flush_cache_phys() > (as what's implemented in this patch)? Christoph is asking not to export it, that would mean relying on the iommu core to be non-modulare and putting the arch calls there with a more restricted exported API - ie based on unmap. > > I've been working towards this very slowly as I want to push this > > stuff down into the io page table walk and remove the significant > > inefficiency, so it is not throw away work, but it is certainly some > > notable amount of work to do. > Will VFIO also be switched to this new unmap interface? Do we need to care > about backporting? I don't know :) > And is it possible for VFIO alone to implement in the current proposed way > in this series as the first step for easier backport? I think this series is the best option we have right now, but make the EXPORT a NS export to try to discourage abuse of it while we continue working Jason
