lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [RFC PATCH] vfio/iommu_type1: Multi-IOMMU domain support
Date


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.williamson@redhat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:06 PM
> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777
> Cc: Sethi Varun-B16395; iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] vfio/iommu_type1: Multi-IOMMU domain support
>
> On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 07:27 +0000, Bharat.Bhushan@freescale.com wrote:
> > > + domain->domain = iommu_domain_alloc(domain->bus);
> > > + if (!domain->domain) {
> > > + ret = -EIO;
> > > + goto out_free;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + ret = iommu_attach_group(domain->domain, iommu_group);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + goto out_domain;
> > > +
> > > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&domain->group_list);
> > > + list_add(&group->next, &domain->group_list);
> > > +
> > > + if (!allow_unsafe_interrupts &&
> > > + !iommu_domain_has_cap(domain->domain, IOMMU_CAP_INTR_REMAP)) {
> > > + pr_warn("%s: No interrupt remapping support. Use the module
> > > +param
> > > \"allow_unsafe_interrupts\" to enable VFIO IOMMU support on this
> > > platform\n",
> > > + __func__);
> > > + ret = -EPERM;
> > > + goto out_detach;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (iommu_domain_has_cap(domain->domain, IOMMU_CAP_CACHE_COHERENCY))
> > > + domain->prot |= IOMMU_CACHE;
> > > +
> > > + /* Try to match an existing compatible domain. */
> > > + list_for_each_entry(d, &iommu->domain_list, next) {
> > > + if (d->bus == domain->bus && d->prot == domain->prot) {
> >
> > Are not we talking about allowing a domain to support different bus type if
> domain/iommu-group properties matches.
>
> This is where I was suggesting to Varun that we could test iommu_ops instead of
> bus_type.
>
> > > + iommu_detach_group(domain->domain, iommu_group);
> > > + if (!iommu_attach_group(d->domain, iommu_group)) {
> > > + list_add(&group->next, &d->group_list);
> > > + iommu_domain_free(domain->domain);
> > > + kfree(domain);
> > > + mutex_unlock(&iommu->lock);
> > > + return 0;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + ret = iommu_attach_group(domain->domain, iommu_group);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + goto out_domain;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /* replay mappings on new domains */
> > > + ret = vfio_iommu_replay(iommu, domain);
> >
> > IIUC; We created a new domain because an already existing domain does
> > not have same attribute; say domain->prot; But in vfio_iommu_replay() we pick
> up any domain, first domain, and create mapping accordingly.
> > Should not we use attributes of this domain otherwise we may get "reserved bit
> faults"?
>
> We use an existing domain to get the iova to physical mappings, should those not
> be consistent regardless of the domain we pick? We're not using any of the low
> level attributes that could cause something like a reserved bit fault. Thanks,

You are right, we use dma->addr etc from any domain and but uses "prot" from the domain passed to replay function().
So effectively the only difference (from dma mapping perspective) between domains in a container is "prot"

Thanks
-Bharat
>
> Alex
>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-21 18:21    [W:0.070 / U:0.604 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site