Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Sep 2023 15:16:49 -0300 | From | Jason Gunthorpe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] iommu/arm-smmu-v3-sva: Remove arm_smmu_bond |
| |
On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 09:14:09PM +0800, Michael Shavit wrote: > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:42 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 07:49:14PM +0800, Michael Shavit wrote: > > > Create a new iommu_domain subclass for SVA iommu domains to hold the > > > data previously stored in the dynamically allocated arm_smmu_bond. Add a > > > simple count of attached SVA domains to arm_smmu_master to replace the > > > list of bonds. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael Shavit <mshavit@google.com> > > > --- > > > > > > .../iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c | 70 +++++++------------ > > > drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 1 - > > > drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.h | 2 +- > > > 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c > > > index 9fb6907c5e7d4..0342c0f35d55a 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c > > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c > > > @@ -24,14 +24,13 @@ struct arm_smmu_mmu_notifier { > > > > > > #define mn_to_smmu(mn) container_of(mn, struct arm_smmu_mmu_notifier, mn) > > > > > > -struct arm_smmu_bond { > > > - struct mm_struct *mm; > > > +struct arm_smmu_sva_domain { > > > + struct iommu_domain iommu_domain; > > > struct arm_smmu_mmu_notifier *smmu_mn; > > > - struct list_head list; > > > }; > > > > > > -#define sva_to_bond(handle) \ > > > - container_of(handle, struct arm_smmu_bond, sva) > > > +#define to_sva_domain(domain) \ > > > + container_of(domain, struct arm_smmu_sva_domain, iommu_domain) > > > > I'm not sure about this? This seems like a strange direction > > > > The SVA domain and a UNMANAGED/PAGING domain should be basically the > > same thing. Making a sva_domain a completely different type looks like > > it would stand in the way of that? > > Agreed that's the eventual destination of all these re-works, but the > stage isn't fully set for that yet. IMO this is a simpler improvement > to get through for now, and I don't see it being an obstacle in the > future.
Well, OK, you have the followup patches..
But I don't want to get in a spot where we continue to have "primary domains" for SVA..
Jason
| |