Re: [PATCH 2/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Link domains and devices

[Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com>]

On 04/04/2019 15:39, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Jean-Philippe,
> 
> First off, thanks for posting this: it's definitely something that I'm keen
> to support, and getting bits in a piece at a time is probably a good idea.
> 
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 05:36:32PM +0000, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>> When removing a mapping from a domain, we need to send an invalidation to
>> all devices that might have stored it in their Address Translation Cache
>> (ATC). In addition when updating the context descriptor of a live domain,
>> we'll need to send invalidations for all devices attached to it.
>>
>> Maintain a list of devices in each domain, protected by a spinlock. It is
>> updated every time we attach or detach devices to and from domains.
>>
>> It needs to be a spinlock because we'll invalidate ATC entries from
>> within hardirq-safe contexts, but it may be possible to relax the read
>> side with RCU later.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> index d3880010c6cf..66a29c113dbc 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c
>> @@ -594,6 +594,11 @@ struct arm_smmu_device {
>>  struct arm_smmu_master_data {
>>  	struct arm_smmu_device		*smmu;
>>  	struct arm_smmu_strtab_ent	ste;
>> +
>> +	struct arm_smmu_domain		*domain;
>> +	struct list_head		domain_head;
>> +
>> +	struct device			*dev;
>>  };
>>  
>>  /* SMMU private data for an IOMMU domain */
>> @@ -618,6 +623,9 @@ struct arm_smmu_domain {
>>  	};
>>  
>>  	struct iommu_domain		domain;
>> +
>> +	struct list_head		devices;
>> +	spinlock_t			devices_lock;
>>  };
>>  
>>  struct arm_smmu_option_prop {
>> @@ -1493,6 +1501,9 @@ static struct iommu_domain *arm_smmu_domain_alloc(unsigned type)
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	mutex_init(&smmu_domain->init_mutex);
>> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&smmu_domain->devices);
>> +	spin_lock_init(&smmu_domain->devices_lock);
> 
> I'm wondering whether we can't take this a bit further and re-organise the
> data structures to make this a little simpler overall. Something along the
> lines of:
> 
> 	struct arm_smmu_master_data {
> 		struct list_head		list; // masters in the same domain
> 		struct arm_smmu_device		*smmu;
> 		unsigned int			num_sids;
> 		u32				*sids; // Points into fwspec
> 		struct arm_smmu_domain		*domain; // NULL -> !assigned
> 	};
> 
> and then just add a list_head into struct arm_smmu_domain to track the
> masters that have been attached (if you're feeling brave, you could put
> this into the s1_cfg).

I'm not sure about that last bit, shouldn't the list of masters apply to
both s1 and s2?

> 
> The ATC invalidation logic would then be:
> 
>   - Detaching a device: walk over the sids from the master data
>   - Unmapping a range from a domain: walk over the attached masters
> 
> I think this would also allow us to remove struct arm_smmu_strtab_ent
> completely.

Makes sense, it does work and simplifies the structures. It makes the
PASID and PRI patches slightly nicer as well. I'll resend once my tests
complete.

Thanks,
Jean

> 
> Dunno: this is one of the those things where you really have to try it
> to figure out why it doesn't work...
> 
> Will
> _______________________________________________
> iommu mailing list
> iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
> 


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel