Hi Joerg, On 11/10/17 12:33, Joerg Roedel wrote: > Hi Jean-Philipe, > > Thanks for your patches, this is definitly a step in the right direction > to get generic support for IO virtual memory into the IOMMU core code. > > But I see an issue with the design around task_struct, please see > below. > > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 02:31:32PM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: >> +int iommu_process_bind_device(struct device *dev, struct task_struct *task, >> + int *pasid, int flags) > > I just took this patch as an example, it is in the other patches as > well. The code is designed around 'struct task_struct' while it should > really be designed around 'struct mm_struct'. You are not attaching a > specific process to a device, but the address-space of one or more > processes. And that should be reflected in the design. Agreed. The task struct is only really needed for obtaining the mm in my code. It also keeps hold of a pid, but that's wrong and easy to remove. > There are several bad implications of building it around task_struct, > one is the life-time of the binding. If the address space is detached > from the device when the process exits, only the thread that did the > setup can can safely make use of the device, because if the device is > accessed from another thread it will crash when the setup-thread exits. > > There are other benefits of using mm_struct, for example that you can > use mmu_notifiers to exit-handling. > > Here is how I think the base API should look like: > > * iommu_iovm_device_init(struct device *dev); > iommu_iovm_device_shutdown(struct device *dev); > > These two functions do the device specific setup/shutdown. For > PCI this would include enabling the PRI, PASID, and ATS > capabilities and setting up a PASID table for the device. Ok. On SMMU the PASID table also hosts the non-PASID page table pointer, so the table and capability cannot be setup later than attach_device (and we'll probably have to enable PASID in add_device). But I suppose it's an implementation detail. Some device drivers will want to use ATS alone, for accelerating IOVA traffic. Should we enable it automatically, or provide device drivers with a way to enable it manually? According to the PCI spec, PASID has to be enabled before ATS, so device_init would have to first disable ATS in that case. > * iommu_iovm_bind_mm(struct device *dev, struct mm_struct *mm, > iovm_shutdown_cb *cb); > iommu_iovm_unbind_mm(struct device *dev, struct mm_struct *mm); > > These functions add and delete the entries in the PASID table > for the device and setup mmu_notifiers for the mm_struct to > keep IOMMU TLBs in sync with the CPU TLBs. > > The shutdown_cb is invoked by the IOMMU core code when the > mm_struct goes away, for example because the process > segfaults. > > The PASID handling is best done these functions as well, unless > there is a strong reason to allow device drivers to do the > handling themselves. > > The context data can be stored directly in mm_struct, including the > PASID for that mm. Changing mm_struct probably isn't required at the moment, since the mm subsystem won't use the context data or the PASID. Outside of drivers/iommu/, only the caller of bind_mm needs the PASID in order to program it into the device. The only advantage I see would be slightly faster bind(), when finding out if a mm is already bound to devices. But we don't really need fast bind(), so I don't think we'd have enough material to argue for a change in mm_struct. We do need to allocate a separate "iommu_mm_struct" wrapper to store the mmu_notifier. Maybe bind() could return this structure (that contains the PASID), and unbind() would take this iommu_mm_struct as argument? Thanks Jean -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
