linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
Cc: Sebastian Ott <sebott@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] iommu/s390: Fix iommu-groups and add sysfs support
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:46:34 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170428144634.7950c8cf@thinkpad> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170427210325.GE1332@8bytes.org>

Hi Joerg,

I guess we are a bit special on s390 (again), see below. Sebastian is more
familiar with the base s390 PCI code, he may correct me if I'm wrong.

On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 23:03:25 +0200
Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> wrote:

> > Well, there is a separate zpci_dev for each pci_dev on s390,
> > and each of those has its own separate dma-table (thus not shared).  
> 
> Is that true for all functions of a PCIe card, so does every function of
> a device has its own zpci_dev structure and thus its own DMA-table?

Yes, clp_add_pci_device() is called for every function, which in turn calls
zpci_create_device() with a freshly allocated zdev. zpci_enable_device()
then sets up a new DMA address space for each function.

> My assumption came from the fact that the zpci_dev is read from
> pci_dev->sysdata, which is propagated there from the pci_bridge
> through the pci_root_bus structures.

The zdev gets there via zpci_create_device() -> zpci_scan_bus() ->
pci_scan_root_bus(), which is done for every single function.

Not sure if I understand this right, but it looks like we set up a new PCI
bus for each function.

> > Given this "separate zpci_dev for each pci_dev" situation, I don't
> > see what this update actually changes, compared to the previous code,
> > see also my comments to that patch.  
> 
> The add_device call-back is invoked for every function of a pci-device,
> because each function gets its own pci_dev structure. Also we usually
> group all functions of a PCI-device together into one iommu-group,
> because we don't trust that the device isolates its functions from each
> other.

OK, but similar to the add_device callback, zpci_create_device() is
also invoked for every function. So, allocating a new iommu-group in
zpci_create_device() will never lead to any group sharing.

I am however a bit confused now, about how we would have allowed group
sharing with the current s390 IOMMU code, or IOW in which scenario would
iommu_group_get() in the add_device callback find a shareable iommu-group?

In the attach_dev callback, we provide the option to "force" multiple
functions using the same iommu-domain / DMA address space, by de-registering
the per-function DMA address space and registering a common space. But
such functions would only be in the same iommu "domain" and not "group",
if I get this right.

So, I guess we may have an issue with not sharing iommu-groups when
it could make sense to do so. But your patch would not fix this, as
we still would allocate separate iommu-groups for all functions.

Regards,
Gerald

  reply	other threads:[~2017-04-28 12:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-27 15:28 [RFC PATCH 0/2] iommu/s390: Fix iommu-groups and add sysfs support Joerg Roedel
2017-04-27 15:28 ` [PATCH 1/2] iommu/s390: Fix IOMMU groups Joerg Roedel
2017-04-27 18:11   ` Gerald Schaefer
2017-04-27 21:12     ` Joerg Roedel
2017-04-28 13:20       ` Gerald Schaefer
2017-04-28 14:40         ` Joerg Roedel
2017-04-28 17:50   ` kbuild test robot
2017-04-27 15:28 ` [PATCH 2/2] iommu/s390: Add support for iommu_device handling Joerg Roedel
2017-04-28 23:02   ` kbuild test robot
2017-04-27 18:10 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] iommu/s390: Fix iommu-groups and add sysfs support Gerald Schaefer
2017-04-27 21:03   ` Joerg Roedel
2017-04-28 12:46     ` Gerald Schaefer [this message]
2017-04-28 14:55       ` Joerg Roedel
2017-04-28 15:25         ` Sebastian Ott
2017-04-28 22:29           ` Joerg Roedel
2017-04-28 18:06         ` Gerald Schaefer
2017-04-28 22:40           ` Joerg Roedel

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=20170428144634.7950c8cf@thinkpad \
    --to=gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sebott@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /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).