lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] iommu/vt-d: Remove redundant IOTLB flush
From
Date
On 2020/3/20 12:32, Jacob Pan wrote:
> IOTLB flush already included in the PASID tear down process. There
> is no need to flush again.

It seems that intel_pasid_tear_down_entry() doesn't flush the pasid
based device TLB?

Best regards,
baolu

>
> Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c | 6 ++----
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c b/drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c
> index 8f42d717d8d7..1483f1845762 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c
> @@ -268,10 +268,9 @@ static void intel_mm_release(struct mmu_notifier *mn, struct mm_struct *mm)
> * *has* to handle gracefully without affecting other processes.
> */
> rcu_read_lock();
> - list_for_each_entry_rcu(sdev, &svm->devs, list) {
> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(sdev, &svm->devs, list)
> intel_pasid_tear_down_entry(svm->iommu, sdev->dev, svm->pasid);
> - intel_flush_svm_range_dev(svm, sdev, 0, -1, 0);
> - }
> +
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> }
> @@ -731,7 +730,6 @@ int intel_svm_unbind_mm(struct device *dev, int pasid)
> * large and has to be physically contiguous. So it's
> * hard to be as defensive as we might like. */
> intel_pasid_tear_down_entry(iommu, dev, svm->pasid);
> - intel_flush_svm_range_dev(svm, sdev, 0, -1, 0);
> kfree_rcu(sdev, rcu);
>
> if (list_empty(&svm->devs)) {
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-20 14:45    [W:0.109 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site