lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 09/12] iommu/vt-d: Add iotlb flush for nested domain
From
On 2023/8/3 12:13, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 12:06 PM
>>
>> On 2023/8/3 12:00, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 11:25 AM
>>>>
>>>> On 2023/8/2 15:46, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>>>> From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 7:14 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&dmar_domain->lock, flags);
>>>>>> + list_for_each_entry(info, &dmar_domain->devices, link)
>>>>>> + intel_nested_invalidate(info->dev, dmar_domain,
>>>>>> + req->addr, req->npages);
>>>>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dmar_domain->lock, flags);
>>>>>
>>>>> Disabling interrupt while invalidating iotlb is certainly unacceptable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually there is no need to walk devices. Under dmar_domain there
>>>>> is already a list of attached iommu's.
>>>>
>>>> Walking device is only necessary when invalidating device TLB. For iotlb
>>>> invalidation, it only needs to know the iommu's.
>>>>
>>>
>>> even for device tlb we may think whether there is any better way
>>> to avoid disabling interrupt. It's a slow path, especially in a guest.
>>
>> I ever tried this. But some device drivers call iommu_unmap() in the
>> interrupt critical path. :-( So we have a long way to go.
>>
>
> emmm... this path only comes from iommufd and the domain is
> user-managed. There won't be kernel drivers to call iommu_unmap()
> on such domain.

Probably we can use a different lock for nested domain and add a comment
around the lock with above explanation.

Best regards,
baolu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-08-03 09:40    [W:0.089 / U:1.524 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site