xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Xu, Quan" <quan.xu@intel.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: "dario.faggioli@citrix.com" <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>,
	"Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@intel.com>,
	"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch v11 3/3] vt-d: fix vt-d Device-TLB flush timeout issue
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:42:52 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <945CA011AD5F084CBEA3E851C0AB28894B8E6711@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57502F8902000078000F0E43@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>

(* I will CC arm/amd maintainer after this vt-d specific discussion, and then send out my proposal...)

On June 02, 2016 7:07 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>> On 01.06.16 at 11:05, <quan.xu@intel.com> wrote:
> > --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/extern.h
> > +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/extern.h
> > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
> >  #define _VTD_EXTERN_H_
> >
> >  #include "dmar.h"
> > +#include "../ats.h"
> 
> Why? You don't de-reference struct pci_ats_dev * in this file, so all you'd need
> is a forward declaration. But then this is not in line with your v11 change
> description above, so I wonder whether you actually sent a stale patch.

Sorry, this patch is really strange to me.

> After all I thought the v10 discussion (see
> http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-
> 05/msg02208.html
> ) had made clear that this passing down,

Sure, what you said is very clear. But I read these code again, I found a  pci_get_pdev_by_domain()
Can also get *pdev without below loop.. (also hardware domain calls pci_get_pdev_by_domain() to get pdev.)

To be honest,  now I don't like to add a struct pci_dev * inside struct pci_ats_dev, as I need to change
' struct pci_ats_dev *pdev' to ' struct pci_ats_dev * pci_ats_dev ' in some functions as well.


> besides reducing the number of
> arguments of some function, would also be meant to eliminate ...
> 
> > +static void dev_invalidate_iotlb_timeout(struct iommu *iommu, u16 did,
> > +                                         struct pci_ats_dev *ats_dev)
> > +{
> > +    struct domain *d = NULL;
> > +    struct pci_dev *pdev;
> > +
> > +    if ( test_bit(did, iommu->domid_bitmap) )
> > +        d = rcu_lock_domain_by_id(iommu->domid_map[did]);
> > +
> > +    /*
> > +     * In case the domain has been freed or the IOMMU domid bitmap is
> > +     * not valid, the device no longer belongs to this domain.
> > +     */
> > +    if ( d == NULL )
> > +        return;
> > +
> > +    pcidevs_lock();
> > +
> > +    for_each_pdev(d, pdev)
> > +    {
> > +        if ( (pdev->seg == ats_dev->seg) &&
> > +             (pdev->bus == ats_dev->bus) &&
> > +             (pdev->devfn == ats_dev->devfn) )
> > +        {
> > +            ASSERT(pdev->domain);
> > +            list_del(&pdev->domain_list);
> > +            pdev->domain = NULL;
> > +            pci_hide_existing_device(pdev);
> > +            break;
> > +        }
> > +    }
> > +
> > +    pcidevs_unlock();
> 
> ... this loop (and locking). (Of course such a change may better be done in
> another preparatory patch.)
> 

To eliminate the locking?  I am afraid the locking is still a must here even without the loop, also referring  to device_assigned()..


> 
> > +static int __must_check dev_invalidate_sync(struct iommu *iommu, u16
> did,
> > +                                            struct pci_ats_dev
> > +*ats_dev) {
> > +    struct qi_ctrl *qi_ctrl = iommu_qi_ctrl(iommu);
> > +    int rc = 0;
> > +
> > +    if ( qi_ctrl->qinval_maddr )
> > +    {
> > +        rc = queue_invalidate_wait(iommu, 0, 1, 1, 1);
> > +
> > +        if ( rc == -ETIMEDOUT )
> > +            dev_invalidate_iotlb_timeout(iommu, did, ats_dev);
> > +    }
> > +
> > +    return rc;
> > +}
> 
> I've never really understood why invalidate_sync() returns success when it
> didn't do anything. Now that you copy this same behavior here, I really need
> to ask you to explain that.
> 

It is acceptable to me, returning success when it didn't do anything -- this is worth reflection and criticism:(..
It is better:
+    if ( qi_ctrl->qinval_maddr )
+        ...
+    else
+        rc = -ENOENT;

A question:
I find the page related to qi_ctrl->qinval_maddr is not freed at all. IMO,
In disable_qinval (), we need to do:
     - free the page related to qi_ctrl->qinval_maddr.
     - qi_ctrl->qinval_maddr = 0;

Right?

Quan

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

  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-16  8:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-01  9:05 [Patch v11 0/3] VT-d Device-TLB flush issue Xu, Quan
2016-06-01  9:05 ` [Patch v11 1/3] IOMMU: add a timeout parameter for device IOTLB invalidation Xu, Quan
2016-06-02 10:24   ` Jan Beulich
2016-06-15  2:55     ` Xu, Quan
2016-06-01  9:05 ` [Patch v11 2/3] vt-d: synchronize for Device-TLB flush one by one Xu, Quan
2016-06-02 10:49   ` Jan Beulich
2016-06-01  9:05 ` [Patch v11 3/3] vt-d: fix vt-d Device-TLB flush timeout issue Xu, Quan
2016-06-02 11:07   ` Jan Beulich
2016-06-16  8:42     ` Xu, Quan [this message]
2016-06-16  9:04       ` Jan Beulich
2016-06-17  6:08         ` Xu, Quan
2016-06-17  7:00           ` Jan Beulich
2016-06-17  8:15             ` Xu, Quan
2016-06-17  8:40               ` Jan Beulich
2016-06-22 15:54             ` Xu, Quan
2016-06-22 16:18               ` Jan Beulich
2016-06-23  2:08                 ` Xu, Quan

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=945CA011AD5F084CBEA3E851C0AB28894B8E6711@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com \
    --to=quan.xu@intel.com \
    --cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=dario.faggioli@citrix.com \
    --cc=feng.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
    --subject='Re: [Patch v11 3/3] vt-d: fix vt-d Device-TLB flush timeout issue' \
    /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

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).