On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 12:27:58PM +0000, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> On 21/02/18 22:59, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> [...]
> > +int iommu_sva_alloc_pasid(struct iommu_domain *domain, struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > + int ret, pasid;
> > + struct io_pasid *io_pasid;
> > +
> > + if (!domain->ops->pasid_alloc || !domain->ops->pasid_free)
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + io_pasid = kzalloc(sizeof(*io_pasid), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!io_pasid)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + io_pasid->domain = domain;
> > + io_pasid->base.type = IO_TYPE_PASID;
> > +
> > + idr_preload(GFP_KERNEL);
> > + spin_lock(&iommu_sva_lock);
> > + pasid = idr_alloc_cyclic(&iommu_pasid_idr, &io_pasid->base,
> > + 1, (1 << 31), GFP_ATOMIC);
>
> To be usable by other IOMMUs, this should restrict the PASID range to what
> the IOMMU and the device support like io_mm_alloc(). In your case 31 bits,
> but with PCI PASID it depends on the PASID capability and the SMMU
> SubstreamID range.
>
> For this reason I think device drivers should call iommu_sva_device_init()
> once, even for the alloc_pasid() API. For SMMUv2 I guess it will be a NOP,
> but other IOMMUs will allocate PASID tables and enable features in the
> device. In addition, knowing that all users of the API call
> iommu_sva_device_init()/shutdown() could allow us to allocate and enable
> stuff lazily in the future.
>
> It would also allow a given device driver to use both
> iommu_sva_pasid_alloc() and iommu_sva_bind() at the same time. So that the
> driver can assigns contexts to userspace and still use some of them for
> management.
No problem.
> [...]
> > +int iommu_sva_map(int pasid, unsigned long iova,
> > + phys_addr_t paddr, size_t size, int prot)
>
> It would be nice to factor iommu_map(), since this logic for map, map_sg
> and unmap should be the same regardless of the PASID argument.
>
> For example
> - iommu_sva_map(domain, pasid, ...)
> - iommu_map(domain, ...)
>
> both call
> - __iommu_map(domain, pasid, ...)
>
> which calls either
> - ops->map(domain, ...)
> - ops->sva_map(domain, pasid, ...)
Agree. I was kind of annoyed at the code duplication - this would be a good way
to handle it.
> [...]
> > @@ -347,6 +353,15 @@ struct iommu_ops {
> > int (*page_response)(struct iommu_domain *domain, struct device *dev,
> > struct page_response_msg *msg);
> >
> > + int (*pasid_alloc)(struct iommu_domain *domain, struct device *dev,
> > + int pasid);
> > + int (*sva_map)(struct iommu_domain *domain, int pasid,
> > + unsigned long iova, phys_addr_t paddr, size_t size,
> > + int prot);
> > + size_t (*sva_unmap)(struct iommu_domain *domain, int pasid,
> > + unsigned long iova, size_t size);
> > + void (*pasid_free)(struct iommu_domain *domain, int pasid);
> > +
>
> Hmm, now IOMMU has the following ops:
>
> * mm_alloc(): allocates a shared mm structure
> * mm_attach(): writes the entry in the PASID table
> * mm_detach(): removes the entry from the PASID table and invalidates it
> * mm_free(): free shared mm
> * pasid_alloc(): allocates a pasid structure (which I usually call
> "private mm") and write the entry in the PASID table (or call
> install_pasid() for SMMUv2)
> * pasid_free(): remove from the PASID table (or call remove_pasid()) and
> free the pasid structure.
>
> Splitting mm_alloc and mm_attach is necessary because the io_mm in my case
> can be shared between devices (allocated once, attached multiple times).
> In your case a PASID is private to one device so only one callback is
> needed. However mm_alloc+mm_attach will do roughly the same as
> pasid_alloc, so to reduce redundancy in iommu_ops, maybe we could reuse
> mm_alloc and mm_attach for the private PASID case?
Okay - let me bang on it and see what we can clean up. Thanks for the review.
Jordan
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
