Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Jul 2023 11:02:50 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/9] iommu: Make fault_param generic | From | Baolu Lu <> |
| |
On 2023/7/12 5:31, Jacob Pan wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 09:06:38 +0800, Lu Baolu<baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> > wrote: > >> The iommu faults, including recoverable faults (IO page faults) and >> unrecoverable faults (DMA faults), are generic to all devices. The >> iommu faults could possibly be triggered for every device. >> >> The fault_param pointer under struct dev_iommu is the per-device fault >> data. Therefore, the fault_param pointer should be allocated during >> iommu device probe and freed when the device is released. >> >> With this done, the individual iommu drivers that support iopf have no >> need to call iommu_[un]register_device_fault_handler() any more. >> This will make it easier for the iommu drivers to support iopf, and it >> will also make the fault_param allocation and free simpler. >> >> Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu<baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> >> --- >> .../iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3-sva.c | 13 +------------ >> drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c | 18 ++++-------------- >> drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ >> 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 26 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 >> a5a63b1c947e..fa8ab9d413f8 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 @@ -437,7 +437,6 @@ >> bool arm_smmu_master_sva_enabled(struct arm_smmu_master *master) >> static int arm_smmu_master_sva_enable_iopf(struct arm_smmu_master >> *master) { >> - int ret; >> struct device *dev = master->dev; >> >> /* >> @@ -450,16 +449,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_master_sva_enable_iopf(struct >> arm_smmu_master *master) if (!master->iopf_enabled) >> return -EINVAL; >> >> - ret = iopf_queue_add_device(master->smmu->evtq.iopf, dev); >> - if (ret) >> - return ret; >> - >> - ret = iommu_register_device_fault_handler(dev, iommu_queue_iopf, >> dev); >> - if (ret) { >> - iopf_queue_remove_device(master->smmu->evtq.iopf, dev); >> - return ret; >> - } >> - return 0; >> + return iopf_queue_add_device(master->smmu->evtq.iopf, dev); >> } >> >> static void arm_smmu_master_sva_disable_iopf(struct arm_smmu_master >> *master) @@ -469,7 +459,6 @@ static void >> arm_smmu_master_sva_disable_iopf(struct arm_smmu_master *master) if >> (!master->iopf_enabled) return; >> >> - iommu_unregister_device_fault_handler(dev); >> iopf_queue_remove_device(master->smmu->evtq.iopf, dev); >> } >> >> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c >> index 5c8c5cdc36cf..22e43db20252 100644 >> --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c >> +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c >> @@ -4594,23 +4594,14 @@ static int intel_iommu_enable_iopf(struct device >> *dev) if (ret) >> return ret; >> >> - ret = iommu_register_device_fault_handler(dev, iommu_queue_iopf, >> dev); >> - if (ret) >> - goto iopf_remove_device; >> - >> ret = pci_enable_pri(pdev, PRQ_DEPTH); >> - if (ret) >> - goto iopf_unregister_handler; >> + if (ret) { >> + iopf_queue_remove_device(iommu->iopf_queue, dev); >> + return ret; >> + } >> info->pri_enabled = 1; >> >> return 0; >> - >> -iopf_unregister_handler: >> - iommu_unregister_device_fault_handler(dev); >> -iopf_remove_device: >> - iopf_queue_remove_device(iommu->iopf_queue, dev); >> - >> - return ret; >> } >> >> static int intel_iommu_disable_iopf(struct device *dev) >> @@ -4637,7 +4628,6 @@ static int intel_iommu_disable_iopf(struct device >> *dev) >> * fault handler and removing device from iopf queue should never >> * fail. >> */ >> - WARN_ON(iommu_unregister_device_fault_handler(dev)); >> WARN_ON(iopf_queue_remove_device(iommu->iopf_queue, dev)); >> >> return 0; >> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c >> index 65895b987e22..8d1f0935ea71 100644 >> --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c >> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c >> @@ -299,7 +299,15 @@ static int dev_iommu_get(struct device *dev) >> return -ENOMEM; >> >> mutex_init(¶m->lock); >> + param->fault_param = kzalloc(sizeof(*param->fault_param), >> GFP_KERNEL); > since fault_param is_always_ allocated/freed along with param, can we merge > into one allocation? i.e. > struct dev_iommu { > struct mutex lock; > - struct iommu_fault_param *fault_param; > + struct iommu_fault_param fault_param;
I am not pretty sure about the change in this patch. It's a simple-and- stupid way. But it also wastes memory for devices that have not pri- capable domain attached.
So probably it's better to allocate fault_param at the place where a real pri-capable domain is attached to the device?
Best regards, baolu
| |