On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 01:26:21PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 01, 2024 at 10:27:09PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 01, 2024 at 10:39:17AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> > > On 2024/8/28 0:59, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > +int iommufd_viommu_alloc_ioctl(struct iommufd_ucmd *ucmd)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct iommu_viommu_alloc *cmd = ucmd->cmd;
> > > > + struct iommufd_hwpt_paging *hwpt_paging;
> > > > + struct iommufd_viommu *viommu;
> > > > + struct iommufd_device *idev;
> > > > + int rc;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (cmd->flags)
> > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > +
> > > > + idev = iommufd_get_device(ucmd, cmd->dev_id);
> > >
> > > Why does a device reference count is needed here? When is this reference
> > > count released after the VIOMMU is allocated?
> >
> > Hmm, it was used to get dev->iommu->iommu_dev to pin the VIOMMU to
> > a physical IOMMU instance (in v1). Jason suggested to remove that,
> > yet I didn't realize that this idev is now completely useless.
> >
> > With that being said, a parent HWPT could be shared across VIOMUs
> > allocated for the same VM. So, I think we do need a dev pointer to
> > know which physical instance the VIOMMU allocates for, especially
> > for a driver-managed VIOMMU.
>
> Eventually you need a way to pin the physical iommu, without pinning
> any idevs. Not sure how best to do that
Just trying to clarify "without pinning any idevs", does it mean
we shouldn't pass in an idev_id to get dev->iommu->iommu_dev?
Otherwise, iommu_probe_device_lock and iommu_device_lock in the
iommu.c are good enough to lock dev->iommu and iommu->list. And
I think we just need an iommu helper refcounting the dev_iommu
(or iommu_device) as we previously discussed.
Thanks
Nicolin
