lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v9 04/11] iommu: Add sva iommu_domain support
From
On 2022/6/29 09:54, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 7:34 PM
>>
>> On 2022/6/28 16:50, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>> From: Baolu Lu<baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 1:41 PM
>>>>>> struct iommu_domain {
>>>>>> unsigned type;
>>>>>> const struct iommu_domain_ops *ops;
>>>>>> unsigned long pgsize_bitmap; /* Bitmap of page sizes in use */
>>>>>> - iommu_fault_handler_t handler;
>>>>>> - void *handler_token;
>>>>>> struct iommu_domain_geometry geometry;
>>>>>> struct iommu_dma_cookie *iova_cookie;
>>>>>> + union {
>>>>>> + struct { /* IOMMU_DOMAIN_DMA */
>>>>>> + iommu_fault_handler_t handler;
>>>>>> + void *handler_token;
>>>>>> + };
>>>>> why is it DMA domain specific? What about unmanaged
>>>>> domain? Unrecoverable fault can happen on any type
>>>>> including SVA. Hence I think above should be domain type
>>>>> agnostic.
>>>> The report_iommu_fault() should be replaced by the new
>>>> iommu_report_device_fault(). Jean has already started this work.
>>>>
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/Yo4Nw9QyllT1RZbd@myrica/
>>>>
>>>> Currently this is only for DMA domains, hence Robin suggested to make it
>>>> exclude with the SVA domain things.
>>>>
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/f3170016-4d7f-e78e-db48-
>>>> 68305f683349@arm.com/
>>> Then it's worthy a comment that those two fields are for
>>> some legacy fault reporting stuff and DMA type only.
>>
>> The iommu_fault and SVA fields are exclusive. The former is used for
>> unrecoverable DMA remapping faults, while the latter is only interested
>> in the recoverable page faults.
>>
>> I will update the commit message with above explanation. Does this work
>> for you?
>>
>
> Not exactly. Your earlier explanation is about old vs. new API thus
> leaving the existing fault handler with current only user is fine.
>
> but this is not related to unrecoverable vs. recoverable. As I said
> unrecoverable could happen on all domain types. Tying it to
> DMA-only doesn't make sense and I think in the end the new
> iommu_report_device_fault() will need support both. Is it not the
> case?

You are right.

The report_iommu_fault() should be replaced by the new
iommu_report_device_fault(). Leave the existing fault handler with the
existing users and the newly added SVA members should exclude it.

Best regards,
baolu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-29 06:47    [W:0.151 / U:4.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site