On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 15:52:14 +0100
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Some systems allow devices to handle I/O Page Faults in the core mm. For
> example systems implementing the PCIe PRI extension or Arm SMMU stall
> model. Infrastructure for reporting these recoverable page faults was
> added to the IOMMU core by commit 0c830e6b3282 ("iommu: Introduce device
> fault report API"). Add a page fault handler for host SVA.
>
> IOMMU driver can now instantiate several fault workqueues and link them
> to IOPF-capable devices. Drivers can choose between a single global
> workqueue, one per IOMMU device, one per low-level fault queue, one per
> domain, etc.
>
> When it receives a fault event, supposedly in an IRQ handler, the IOMMU
Why "supposedly"? Do you mean "most commonly"
> driver reports the fault using iommu_report_device_fault(), which calls
> the registered handler. The page fault handler then calls the mm fault
> handler, and reports either success or failure with iommu_page_response().
> When the handler succeeds, the IOMMU retries the access.
For PRI that description is perhaps a bit missleading. IIRC the IOMMU
will only retry when it gets a new ATS query.
>
> The iopf_param pointer could be embedded into iommu_fault_param. But
> putting iopf_param into the iommu_param structure allows us not to care
> about ordering between calls to iopf_queue_add_device() and
> iommu_register_device_fault_handler().
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@xxxxxxxxxx>
One really minor inconsistency inline that made me look twice..
With or without that tided up FWIW.
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
...
> +/**
> + * iopf_queue_add_device - Add producer to the fault queue
> + * @queue: IOPF queue
> + * @dev: device to add
> + *
> + * Return: 0 on success and <0 on error.
> + */
> +int iopf_queue_add_device(struct iopf_queue *queue, struct device *dev)
> +{
> + int ret = -EBUSY;
> + struct iopf_device_param *iopf_param;
> + struct dev_iommu *param = dev->iommu;
> +
> + if (!param)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + iopf_param = kzalloc(sizeof(*iopf_param), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!iopf_param)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&iopf_param->partial);
> + iopf_param->queue = queue;
> + iopf_param->dev = dev;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&queue->lock);
> + mutex_lock(¶m->lock);
> + if (!param->iopf_param) {
> + list_add(&iopf_param->queue_list, &queue->devices);
> + param->iopf_param = iopf_param;
> + ret = 0;
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(¶m->lock);
> + mutex_unlock(&queue->lock);
> +
> + if (ret)
> + kfree(iopf_param);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iopf_queue_add_device);
> +
> +/**
> + * iopf_queue_remove_device - Remove producer from fault queue
> + * @queue: IOPF queue
> + * @dev: device to remove
> + *
> + * Caller makes sure that no more faults are reported for this device.
> + *
> + * Return: 0 on success and <0 on error.
> + */
> +int iopf_queue_remove_device(struct iopf_queue *queue, struct device *dev)
> +{
> + int ret = 0;
I'm not that keen that the logic of ret is basically the opposite
of that in the previous function.
There we had it init to error then set to good, here we do the opposite.
Not that important which but right now it just made me do a double take
whilst reading.
> + struct iopf_fault *iopf, *next;
> + struct iopf_device_param *iopf_param;
> + struct dev_iommu *param = dev->iommu;
> +
> + if (!param || !queue)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&queue->lock);
> + mutex_lock(¶m->lock);
> + iopf_param = param->iopf_param;
> + if (iopf_param && iopf_param->queue == queue) {
> + list_del(&iopf_param->queue_list);
> + param->iopf_param = NULL;
> + } else {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(¶m->lock);
> + mutex_unlock(&queue->lock);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + /* Just in case some faults are still stuck */
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(iopf, next, &iopf_param->partial, list)
> + kfree(iopf);
> +
> + kfree(iopf_param);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iopf_queue_remove_device);
> +
...
