lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 04/12] iommu/vt-d: Add 256-bit invalidation descriptor support
From
Date
Hi,

On 12/4/18 1:23 AM, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> Hi Joerg,
>
>> From: Joerg Roedel [mailto:joro@8bytes.org]
>> Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 5:49 AM
>> To: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/12] iommu/vt-d: Add 256-bit invalidation descriptor
>> support
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:54:41AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
>>> -
>>> - desc_page = alloc_pages_node(iommu->node, GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_ZERO,
>> 0);
>>> + /*
>>> + * Need two pages to accommodate 256 descriptors of 256 bits each
>>> + * if the remapping hardware supports scalable mode translation.
>>> + */
>>> + desc_page = alloc_pages_node(iommu->node, GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_ZERO,
>>> + !!ecap_smts(iommu->ecap));
>>
>>
>> Same here, does the allocation really need GFP_ATOMIC?
>
> still leave to Baolu.

The existing code uses GFP_ATOMIC, this patch only changes the size of
the allocated desc_page.

I don't think we really need GFP_ATOMIC here (and also for some other
places). I will clean up them in a separated patch.

>
>>
>>> struct q_inval {
>>> raw_spinlock_t q_lock;
>>> - struct qi_desc *desc; /* invalidation queue */
>>> + void *desc; /* invalidation queue */
>>> int *desc_status; /* desc status */
>>> int free_head; /* first free entry */
>>> int free_tail; /* last free entry */
>>
>> Why do you switch the pointer to void* ?
>
> In this patch, there is some code like the code below. It calculates
> destination address of memcpy with qi->desc. If it's still struct qi_desc
> pointer, the calculation result would be wrong.
>
> + memcpy(desc, qi->desc + (wait_index << shift),
> + 1 << shift);
>
> The change of the calculation method is to support 128 bits invalidation
> descriptors and 256 invalidation descriptors in this unified code logic.
>
> Also, the conversation between Baolu and me may help.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1006756/

Yes. We need to support different descriptor size.

Best regards,
Lu Baolu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-04 07:17    [W:0.466 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site