Re: [PATCH v5 01/10] vt-d: fix the IOMMU flush issue

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>]

>>> On 23.05.16 at 17:22, <quan.xu@intel.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 2016 9:31 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> >>> On 18.05.16 at 10:08, <quan.xu@intel.com> wrote:
>> > --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
>> > +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
>> > @@ -557,14 +557,16 @@ static void iommu_flush_all(void)
>> >      }
>> >  }
>> >
>> > -static void __intel_iommu_iotlb_flush(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
>> > -        int dma_old_pte_present, unsigned int page_count)
>> > +static int __intel_iommu_iotlb_flush(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn,
>> > +                                     bool_t dma_old_pte_present,
>> > +                                     unsigned int page_count)
>> 
>> I realize you say so in the overview mail, but the continuing lack of
>> __must_check here causes review trouble again. And I have a hard time seeing
>> how adding these annotations right away would "disrupt the order", as long
>> as the series is properly ordered / broken up.
>> 
> 
> If I add __must_check annotations here right now, e.g. 
> 
> -static void intel_iommu_iotlb_flush()
> +static int __must_check iommu_flush_iotlb_pages()
> 
> ... 
> 
> @@ -179,8 +179,9 @@ struct iommu_ops {
> -    void (*iotlb_flush)(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn, unsigned int 
> page_count);
> +    int __must_check (*iotlb_flush)(struct domain *d, unsigned long gfn, 
> unsigned int page_count);
> ...
> }
> 
> Should belong  to here too. 

Correct. And where's the problem?

>> > +                                    DMA_CCMD_MASK_NOBIT, 1);
>> > +
>> > +    /*
>> > +     * The current logic for rc returns:
>> > +     *   - positive  invoke iommu_flush_write_buffer to flush cache.
>> > +     *   - zero      success.
>> > +     *   - negative  failure. Continue to flush IOMMU IOTLB on a best
>> > +     *               effort basis.
>> > +     */
>> > +    if ( rc <= 0 )
>> >      {
>> >          int flush_dev_iotlb = find_ats_dev_drhd(iommu) ? 1 : 0;
>> > -        iommu_flush_iotlb_dsi(iommu, 0, 1, flush_dev_iotlb);
>> > +
>> > +        rc = iommu_flush_iotlb_dsi(iommu, 0, 1, flush_dev_iotlb);
>> 
>> If rc was negative before this call, you may end up returning success 
> without
>> having been successful. Furthermore I think it was you who last time round
>> reminded me that
>> iommu_flush_iotlb_dsi() can also return 1, which you don't take care of.
>> 
> 
> Yes, the iommu_flush_iotlb_dsi() can also return 1.
> Look at the call tree, at the beginning of 
> flush_context_qi()/flush_iotlb_qi(), or 
> flush_context_reg()/flush_iotlb_reg()..
> 
> If rc was negative when we call iommu_flush_context_device(), it is 
> impossible to return 1 for iommu_flush_iotlb_dsi().

This is far from obvious, so please add a respective ASSERT() if
you want to rely on that.

> IMO, furthermore, this should not belong  to comment.

???

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel