lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v10 08/12] iommu/sva: Refactoring iommu_sva_bind/unbind_device()
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 06:22:06PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 2022/7/25 15:50, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
> > > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2022 9:48 PM
> > > >
> > > > The API is really refcounting the PASID:
> > > >
> > > > > +struct iommu_sva *iommu_sva_bind_device(struct device *dev,
> > > > > + struct mm_struct *mm);
> > > > > +void iommu_sva_unbind_device(struct iommu_sva *handle);
> > > >
> > > > So what you need to do is store that 'iommu_sva' in the group's PASID
> > > > xarray.
> > > >
> > > > The bind logic would be
> > > >
> > > > sva = xa_load(group->pasid, mm->pasid)
> > > > if (sva)
> > > > refcount_inc(sva->users)
> > > > return sva
> > > > sva = kalloc
> > > > sva->domain = domain
> > > > xa_store(group->pasid, sva);
> > >
> > > Thanks for the suggestion. It makes a lot of sense to me.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, I'd like to separate the generic data from the caller-
> > > specific things because the group->pasid_array should also be able to
> > > serve other usages. Hence, the attach/detach_device_pasid interfaces
> > > might be changed like below:
> > >
> > > /* Collection of per-pasid IOMMU data */
> > > struct group_pasid {
> > > struct iommu_domain *domain;
> > > void *priv;
> > > };
> > >
> >
> > Is there any reason why pasid refcnt is sva specific and needs to be
> > in a priv field?
>
> I am going to store the iommu_sva data which represents the bind
> relationship between device and domain.

Why do you need that?

If you are starting at the pasid xarray then you already know the
group/device, so we don't need to store it again.

The only thing needed is the refcount so just store a refcount in this
structure and be done with it. If someone needs to add something later
then we can use a union or something, but right now adding an untagged
void * is bad.

Jason

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-07-25 16:49    [W:0.183 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site