Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Jan 2023 15:50:07 -0400 | From | Jason Gunthorpe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] iommufd: Add devices_users to track the hw_pagetable usage by device |
| |
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:27:37AM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:02:25AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 01:18:09PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > > From: Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@intel.com> > > > > > > Currently, hw_pagetable tracks the attached devices using a device list. > > > When attaching the first device to the kernel-managed hw_pagetable, it > > > should be linked to IOAS. When detaching the last device from this hwpt, > > > the link with IOAS should be removed too. And this first-or-last device > > > check is done with list_empty(hwpt->devices). > > > > > > However, with a nested configuration, when a device is attached to the > > > user-managed stage-1 hw_pagetable, it will be added to this user-managed > > > hwpt's device list instead of the kernel-managed stage-2 hwpt's one. And > > > this breaks the logic for a kernel-managed hw_pagetable link/disconnect > > > to/from IOAS/IOPT. e.g. the stage-2 hw_pagetable would be linked to IOAS > > > multiple times if multiple device is attached, but it will become empty > > > as soon as one device detached. > > > > Why this seems really weird to say. > > > > The stage 2 is linked explicitly to the IOAS that drives it's > > map/unmap > > > > Why is there any implicit activity here? There should be no implicit > > attach of the S2 to an IOAS ever. > > I think this is supposed to say the following use case: > > Two stage-1 hwpts share the same parent s2_hwpt: > > attach device1 to stage-1 hwpt1: > ... > if (list_empty(s1_hwpt1->devices)) // empty; true > iopt_table_add_domain(s2_hwpt->domain); // do once > s1_hwpt1 device list cnt++; > ...
No, this doesn't make sense.
The s2_hwpt should be created explicitly, not using autodomains
When it is created it should be linked to a single IOAS and that is when iopt_table_add_domain() should have been called.
The S1 attach should do *nothing* to a S2.
Jason
| |