Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/5] iommu/vt-d: Fix unaligned addresses for intel_flush_svm_range_dev() | From | Lu Baolu <> | Date | Fri, 8 Jan 2021 22:30:14 +0800 |
| |
Hi Will,
On 2021/1/8 22:09, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Lu, > > On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 07:52:47AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote: >> On 2021/1/6 9:09, Lu Baolu wrote: >>> On 2021/1/6 3:03, Will Deacon wrote: >>>> On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 08:53:20AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote: >>>>> @@ -170,6 +172,22 @@ static void intel_flush_svm_range_dev >>>>> (struct intel_svm *svm, struct intel_svm_d >>>>> } >>>>> } >>>>> +static void intel_flush_svm_range_dev(struct intel_svm *svm, >>>>> + struct intel_svm_dev *sdev, >>>>> + unsigned long address, >>>>> + unsigned long pages, int ih) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + unsigned long shift = ilog2(__roundup_pow_of_two(pages)); >>>>> + unsigned long align = (1ULL << (VTD_PAGE_SHIFT + shift)); >>>>> + unsigned long start = ALIGN_DOWN(address, align); >>>>> + unsigned long end = ALIGN(address + (pages << >>>>> VTD_PAGE_SHIFT), align); >>>>> + >>>>> + while (start < end) { >>>>> + __flush_svm_range_dev(svm, sdev, start, align >> >>>>> VTD_PAGE_SHIFT, ih); >>>>> + start += align; >>>>> + } >>>>> +} >>>> >>>> Given that this only seems to be called from >>>> intel_invalidate_range(), which >>>> has to compute 'pages' only to have it pulled apart again here, >>>> perhaps it >>>> would be cleaner for intel_flush_svm_range() to take something like an >>>> 'order' argument instead? >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>> >>> We need to clean up here. It's duplicate with the qi_flush_piotlb() >>> helper. I have a patch under testing for this. I will post it for review >>> later. >> >> I'm sorry, above reply is a little vague. >> >> I meant to say, let's take 'pages' as the argument. We are going to use >> qi_flush_piotlb() here to avoid duplicate QI interactions. The >> qi_flush_piotlb() helper also takes 'pages', so keep 'pages' here will >> make things easier. >> >> My cleanup patch is for v5.12. Can you please take this for v5.11? > > Ah sorry, I didn't realise that was your plan. Please just include this > patch in a series of 2 when you post a fixed version of the trace event > removal and then I'll queue them up next week, as I've already prepared > the pull for today.
Sure and sorry for my vague reply.
> > Apologies,
It's okay. :-)
> > Will >
Best regards, baolu
| |