Re: [Patch v6 02/11] IOMMU/MMU: enhance the call trees of IOMMU unmapping and mapping

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

>>> On 02.06.16 at 08:00, <quan.xu@intel.com> wrote:
> On June 01, 2016 6:05 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> >>> On 31.05.16 at 15:57, <quan.xu@intel.com> wrote:
>> > @@ -680,11 +682,27 @@ p2m_pt_set_entry(struct p2m_domain *p2m,
>> unsigned long gfn, mfn_t mfn,
>> >          }
>> >          else if ( iommu_pte_flags )
>> >              for ( i = 0; i < (1UL << page_order); i++ )
>> > -                iommu_map_page(p2m->domain, gfn + i, mfn_x(mfn) + i,
>> > -                               iommu_pte_flags);
>> > +            {
>> > +                ret = iommu_map_page(p2m->domain, gfn + i, mfn_x(mfn) + i,
>> > +                                     iommu_pte_flags);
>> > +                if ( unlikely(ret) )
>> > +                {
>> > +                    while ( i-- )
>> > +                        iommu_unmap_page(p2m->domain, gfn + i);
>> > +
>> > +                    if ( !rc )
>> > +                        rc = ret;
>> > +
>> > +                    break;
>> > +                }
>> > +            }
>> 
>> So why do you not use the same code structure here as you do on the EPT
>> side? 
> 
> I try to modify these code in a slight way, but if you point out some extra 
> issue, I am pleased to fix it.
> Furthermore, I was not sure whether I made an arbitrary decision here to add 
> the condition 'rc == 0' or not,
> Even I was aware of that the 'rc' is zero when the code run here..

If you want to document that rc can't be other than zero when getting
here, simply add an ASSERT(). I.e. ...

>> I.e. do away with using "ret" altogether, moving it all into ...
>> 
>> >          else
>> >              for ( i = 0; i < (1UL << page_order); i++ )
>> > -                iommu_unmap_page(p2m->domain, gfn + i);
>> > +            {
>> > +                ret = iommu_unmap_page(p2m->domain, gfn + i);
>> > +                if ( !rc )
>> > +                    rc = ret;
>> > +            }
>> 
>> ... this extremely narrow scope?
>> 
> 
> What about this fix:
> 
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pt.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pt.c
> @@ -670,7 +670,7 @@ p2m_pt_set_entry(struct p2m_domain *p2m, unsigned long gfn, mfn_t mfn,
>           && (gfn + (1UL << page_order) - 1 > p2m->max_mapped_pfn) )
>          p2m->max_mapped_pfn = gfn + (1UL << page_order) - 1;
> 
> -    if ( iommu_enabled && need_iommu(p2m->domain) &&
> +    if ( rc == 0 && iommu_enabled && need_iommu(p2m->domain) &&

... I'm not in favor of this, because it's still pointless code. The
nature of ASSERT()s is that - if everything works right - they're
pointless by definition (and hence ought to serve as just
documentation).

> @@ -678,13 +678,33 @@ p2m_pt_set_entry(struct p2m_domain *p2m, unsigned long gfn, mfn_t mfn,
>              if ( iommu_old_flags )
>                  amd_iommu_flush_pages(p2m->domain, gfn, page_order);
>          }
> -        else if ( iommu_pte_flags )

I also don't see why you replace this line, at once causing needlessly
deeper indentation.

> -            for ( i = 0; i < (1UL << page_order); i++ )
> -                iommu_map_page(p2m->domain, gfn + i, mfn_x(mfn) + i,
> -                               iommu_pte_flags);
>          else
> -            for ( i = 0; i < (1UL << page_order); i++ )
> -                iommu_unmap_page(p2m->domain, gfn + i);
> +        {
> +            if ( iommu_pte_flags )
> +                for ( i = 0; i < (1UL << page_order); i++ )
> +                {
> +                    rc = iommu_map_page(p2m->domain, gfn + i, mfn_x(mfn) + i,
> +                                        iommu_pte_flags);
> +                    if ( unlikely(rc) )
> +                    {
> +                        while ( i-- )
> +                            iommu_unmap_page(p2m->domain, gfn + i);
> +
> +                        break;
> +                    }
> +                }
> +            else
> +            {
> +                int ret;
> +
> +                for ( i = 0; i < (1UL << page_order); i++ )
> +                {
> +                    ret = iommu_unmap_page(p2m->domain, gfn + i);

And I said specially to move "ret" into this scope (the narrowest one
possible), instead of in the one surrounding it.

Jan

> +                    if ( !rc )
> +                        rc = ret;
> +                }
> +            }
> +        }
>      }
> 
> Quan



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