Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 16/19] iommu/vtd: Clean up for SVM device list | From | Auger Eric <> | Date | Fri, 26 Apr 2019 18:19:20 +0200 |
| |
Hi
On 4/24/19 1:31 AM, Jacob Pan wrote: > Use combined macro for_each_svm_dev() to simplify SVM device iteration. > > Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
Thanks
Eric
> --- > drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c b/drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c > index 0a973c2..39dfb2e 100644 > --- a/drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c > +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c > @@ -447,15 +447,13 @@ int intel_svm_bind_mm(struct device *dev, int *pasid, int flags, struct svm_dev_ > goto out; > } > > - list_for_each_entry(sdev, &svm->devs, list) { > - if (dev == sdev->dev) { > - if (sdev->ops != ops) { > - ret = -EBUSY; > - goto out; > - } > - sdev->users++; > - goto success; > + for_each_svm_dev() { > + if (sdev->ops != ops) { > + ret = -EBUSY; > + goto out; > } > + sdev->users++; > + goto success; > } > > break; > @@ -585,40 +583,38 @@ int intel_svm_unbind_mm(struct device *dev, int pasid) > if (!svm) > goto out; > > - list_for_each_entry(sdev, &svm->devs, list) { > - if (dev == sdev->dev) { > - ret = 0; > - sdev->users--; > - if (!sdev->users) { > - list_del_rcu(&sdev->list); > - /* Flush the PASID cache and IOTLB for this device. > - * Note that we do depend on the hardware *not* using > - * the PASID any more. Just as we depend on other > - * devices never using PASIDs that they have no right > - * to use. We have a *shared* PASID table, because it's > - * large and has to be physically contiguous. So it's > - * hard to be as defensive as we might like. */ > - intel_pasid_tear_down_entry(iommu, dev, svm->pasid); > - intel_flush_svm_range_dev(svm, sdev, 0, -1, 0, !svm->mm); > - kfree_rcu(sdev, rcu); > - > - if (list_empty(&svm->devs)) { > - ioasid_free(svm->pasid); > - if (svm->mm) > - mmu_notifier_unregister(&svm->notifier, svm->mm); > - > - list_del(&svm->list); > - > - /* We mandate that no page faults may be outstanding > - * for the PASID when intel_svm_unbind_mm() is called. > - * If that is not obeyed, subtle errors will happen. > - * Let's make them less subtle... */ > - memset(svm, 0x6b, sizeof(*svm)); > - kfree(svm); > - } > + for_each_svm_dev() { > + ret = 0; > + sdev->users--; > + if (!sdev->users) { > + list_del_rcu(&sdev->list); > + /* Flush the PASID cache and IOTLB for this device. > + * Note that we do depend on the hardware *not* using > + * the PASID any more. Just as we depend on other > + * devices never using PASIDs that they have no right > + * to use. We have a *shared* PASID table, because it's > + * large and has to be physically contiguous. So it's > + * hard to be as defensive as we might like. */ > + intel_pasid_tear_down_entry(iommu, dev, svm->pasid); > + intel_flush_svm_range_dev(svm, sdev, 0, -1, 0, !svm->mm); > + kfree_rcu(sdev, rcu); > + > + if (list_empty(&svm->devs)) { > + ioasid_free(svm->pasid); > + if (svm->mm) > + mmu_notifier_unregister(&svm->notifier, svm->mm); > + > + list_del(&svm->list); > + > + /* We mandate that no page faults may be outstanding > + * for the PASID when intel_svm_unbind_mm() is called. > + * If that is not obeyed, subtle errors will happen. > + * Let's make them less subtle... */ > + memset(svm, 0x6b, sizeof(*svm)); > + kfree(svm); > } > - break; > } > + break; > } > out: > mutex_unlock(&pasid_mutex); >
| |