From: Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@huawei.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
<kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
"Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Alexios Zavras <alexios.zavras@intel.com>,
<wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com>, <jiangkunkun@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] vfio/iommu_type1: Make an explicit "promote" semantic
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 21:33:39 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0cf47d65-cb91-199e-af7d-048134634298@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210115154240.0d3ee455@omen.home.shazbot.org>
On 2021/1/16 6:42, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 12:43:56 +0800
> Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>> When we want to promote the pinned_page_dirty_scope of vfio_iommu,
>> we call the "update" function to visit all vfio_group, but when we
>> want to downgrade this, we can set the flag as false directly.
>
> I agree that the transition can only go in one direction, but it's
> still conditional on the scope of all groups involved. We are
> "updating" the iommu state based on the change of a group. Renaming
> this to "promote" seems like a matter of personal preference.
>
>> So we'd better make an explicit "promote" semantic to the "update"
>> function. BTW, if vfio_iommu already has been promoted, then return
>> early.
>
> Currently it's the caller that avoids using this function when the
> iommu scope is already correct. In fact the changes induces a
> redundant test in the pin_pages code path, we're changing a group from
> non-pinned-page-scope to pinned-page-scope, therefore the iommu scope
> cannot initially be scope limited. In the attach_group call path,
> we're moving that test from the caller, so at best we've introduced an
> additional function call.
>
> The function as it exists today is also more versatile whereas the
> "promote" version here forces it to a single task with no appreciable
> difference in complexity or code. This seems like a frivolous change.
> Thanks,
OK, I will adapt your idea that maintenance a counter of non-pinned groups.
Then we keep the "update" semantic, and the target is the counter ;-).
Thanks,
Keqian
>
> Alex
>
>> Signed-off-by: Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 30 ++++++++++++++----------------
>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
>> index 0b4dedaa9128..334a8240e1da 100644
>> --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c
>> @@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ static int put_pfn(unsigned long pfn, int prot);
>> static struct vfio_group *vfio_iommu_find_iommu_group(struct vfio_iommu *iommu,
>> struct iommu_group *iommu_group);
>>
>> -static void update_pinned_page_dirty_scope(struct vfio_iommu *iommu);
>> +static void promote_pinned_page_dirty_scope(struct vfio_iommu *iommu);
>> /*
>> * This code handles mapping and unmapping of user data buffers
>> * into DMA'ble space using the IOMMU
>> @@ -714,7 +714,7 @@ static int vfio_iommu_type1_pin_pages(void *iommu_data,
>> group = vfio_iommu_find_iommu_group(iommu, iommu_group);
>> if (!group->pinned_page_dirty_scope) {
>> group->pinned_page_dirty_scope = true;
>> - update_pinned_page_dirty_scope(iommu);
>> + promote_pinned_page_dirty_scope(iommu);
>> }
>>
>> goto pin_done;
>> @@ -1622,27 +1622,26 @@ static struct vfio_group *vfio_iommu_find_iommu_group(struct vfio_iommu *iommu,
>> return group;
>> }
>>
>> -static void update_pinned_page_dirty_scope(struct vfio_iommu *iommu)
>> +static void promote_pinned_page_dirty_scope(struct vfio_iommu *iommu)
>> {
>> struct vfio_domain *domain;
>> struct vfio_group *group;
>>
>> + if (iommu->pinned_page_dirty_scope)
>> + return;
>> +
>> list_for_each_entry(domain, &iommu->domain_list, next) {
>> list_for_each_entry(group, &domain->group_list, next) {
>> - if (!group->pinned_page_dirty_scope) {
>> - iommu->pinned_page_dirty_scope = false;
>> + if (!group->pinned_page_dirty_scope)
>> return;
>> - }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> if (iommu->external_domain) {
>> domain = iommu->external_domain;
>> list_for_each_entry(group, &domain->group_list, next) {
>> - if (!group->pinned_page_dirty_scope) {
>> - iommu->pinned_page_dirty_scope = false;
>> + if (!group->pinned_page_dirty_scope)
>> return;
>> - }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> @@ -2057,8 +2056,7 @@ static int vfio_iommu_type1_attach_group(void *iommu_data,
>> * addition of a dirty tracking group.
>> */
>> group->pinned_page_dirty_scope = true;
>> - if (!iommu->pinned_page_dirty_scope)
>> - update_pinned_page_dirty_scope(iommu);
>> + promote_pinned_page_dirty_scope(iommu);
>> mutex_unlock(&iommu->lock);
>>
>> return 0;
>> @@ -2341,7 +2339,7 @@ static void vfio_iommu_type1_detach_group(void *iommu_data,
>> struct vfio_iommu *iommu = iommu_data;
>> struct vfio_domain *domain;
>> struct vfio_group *group;
>> - bool update_dirty_scope = false;
>> + bool promote_dirty_scope = false;
>> LIST_HEAD(iova_copy);
>>
>> mutex_lock(&iommu->lock);
>> @@ -2349,7 +2347,7 @@ static void vfio_iommu_type1_detach_group(void *iommu_data,
>> if (iommu->external_domain) {
>> group = find_iommu_group(iommu->external_domain, iommu_group);
>> if (group) {
>> - update_dirty_scope = !group->pinned_page_dirty_scope;
>> + promote_dirty_scope = !group->pinned_page_dirty_scope;
>> list_del(&group->next);
>> kfree(group);
>>
>> @@ -2379,7 +2377,7 @@ static void vfio_iommu_type1_detach_group(void *iommu_data,
>> continue;
>>
>> vfio_iommu_detach_group(domain, group);
>> - update_dirty_scope = !group->pinned_page_dirty_scope;
>> + promote_dirty_scope = !group->pinned_page_dirty_scope;
>> list_del(&group->next);
>> kfree(group);
>> /*
>> @@ -2415,8 +2413,8 @@ static void vfio_iommu_type1_detach_group(void *iommu_data,
>> * Removal of a group without dirty tracking may allow the iommu scope
>> * to be promoted.
>> */
>> - if (update_dirty_scope)
>> - update_pinned_page_dirty_scope(iommu);
>> + if (promote_dirty_scope)
>> + promote_pinned_page_dirty_scope(iommu);
>> mutex_unlock(&iommu->lock);
>> }
>>
>
> .
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-18 13:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-07 4:43 [PATCH 0/6] vfio/iommu_type1: Some optimizations about dirty tracking Keqian Zhu
2021-01-07 4:43 ` [PATCH 1/6] vfio/iommu_type1: Make an explicit "promote" semantic Keqian Zhu
2021-01-15 22:42 ` Alex Williamson
2021-01-18 13:33 ` Keqian Zhu [this message]
2021-01-07 4:43 ` [PATCH 2/6] vfio/iommu_type1: Ignore external domain when promote pinned_scope Keqian Zhu
2021-01-15 23:23 ` Alex Williamson
2021-01-07 4:43 ` [PATCH 3/6] vfio/iommu_type1: Initially set the pinned_page_dirty_scope Keqian Zhu
2021-01-15 23:30 ` Alex Williamson
2021-01-18 13:34 ` Keqian Zhu
2021-01-07 4:43 ` [PATCH 4/6] vfio/iommu_type1: Drop parameter "pgsize" of vfio_dma_bitmap_alloc_all Keqian Zhu
2021-01-15 23:37 ` Alex Williamson
2021-01-07 4:44 ` [PATCH 5/6] vfio/iommu_type1: Drop parameter "pgsize" of vfio_iova_dirty_bitmap Keqian Zhu
2021-01-15 23:39 ` Alex Williamson
2021-01-07 4:44 ` [PATCH 6/6] vfio/iommu_type1: Drop parameter "pgsize" of update_user_bitmap Keqian Zhu
2021-01-15 23:44 ` Alex Williamson
2021-01-18 13:48 ` Keqian Zhu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0cf47d65-cb91-199e-af7d-048134634298@huawei.com \
--to=zhukeqian1@huawei.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=alexios.zavras@intel.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=jiangkunkun@huawei.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).