lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 6/7] iommu: Introduce IOMMU_RESV_DIRECT_RELAXABLE reserved memory regions
From
Date
On 16/05/2019 11:08, Eric Auger wrote:
> Note: At the moment the sysfs ABI is not changed. However I wonder
> whether it wouldn't be preferable to report the direct region as
> "direct_relaxed" there. At the moment, in case the same direct
> region is used by 2 devices, one USB/GFX and another not belonging
> to the previous categories, the direct region will be output twice
> with "direct" type.
>
> This would unblock Shameer's series:
> [PATCH v6 0/7] vfio/type1: Add support for valid iova list management
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10425309/

Thanks for doing this!

> which failed to get pulled for 4.18 merge window due to IGD
> device assignment regression.
>
> v2 -> v3:
> - fix direct type check
> ---
> drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 12 +++++++-----
> include/linux/iommu.h | 6 ++++++
> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> index ae4ea5c0e6f9..28c3d6351832 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> @@ -73,10 +73,11 @@ struct iommu_group_attribute {
> };
>
> static const char * const iommu_group_resv_type_string[] = {
> - [IOMMU_RESV_DIRECT] = "direct",
> - [IOMMU_RESV_RESERVED] = "reserved",
> - [IOMMU_RESV_MSI] = "msi",
> - [IOMMU_RESV_SW_MSI] = "msi",
> + [IOMMU_RESV_DIRECT] = "direct",
> + [IOMMU_RESV_DIRECT_RELAXABLE] = "direct",
> + [IOMMU_RESV_RESERVED] = "reserved",
> + [IOMMU_RESV_MSI] = "msi",
> + [IOMMU_RESV_SW_MSI] = "msi",
> };
>
> #define IOMMU_GROUP_ATTR(_name, _mode, _show, _store) \
> @@ -573,7 +574,8 @@ static int iommu_group_create_direct_mappings(struct iommu_group *group,
> start = ALIGN(entry->start, pg_size);
> end = ALIGN(entry->start + entry->length, pg_size);
>
> - if (entry->type != IOMMU_RESV_DIRECT)
> + if (entry->type != IOMMU_RESV_DIRECT &&
> + entry->type != IOMMU_RESV_DIRECT_RELAXABLE)

I'm trying to understand why you need to create direct mappings at all
for these relaxable regions. In the host the region is needed for legacy
device features, which are disabled (and cannot be re-enabled) when
assigning the device to a guest?

Thanks,
Jean

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-16 13:17    [W:0.106 / U:0.968 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site