Re: [PATCH rfcv2 6/8] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Populate smmu_domain->invs when attaching masters

[Nicolin Chen]

On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 01:25:16PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 01:19:29PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > I see a cleaner way of handling this is to update invs->num_invs
> > inside arm_smmu_invs_unref():
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > @@ -1209,6 +1216,13 @@ size_t arm_smmu_invs_unref(struct arm_smmu_invs *invs,
> >                         j++;
> >                 }
> >         }
> > +
> > +       /* The lock is required to fence concurrent ATS operations. */
> > +       write_lock_irqsave(&invs->rwlock, flags);
> > +       /* Trim the size by removing tailing trash entries */
> > +       WRITE_ONCE(invs->num_invs, num_invs);
> > +       write_unlock_irqrestore(&invs->rwlock, flags);
> 
> That seems Ok
> 
> It means the arm_smmu_invs_unref() becomes the fence that guarentees
> the ATS is stopped for anything marked as trash.
> 
> Then the next steps can just be normal RCU and don't need rwlocking.

Yea. The "old" flag could be dropped too:

        while (true) {
                invs = rcu_dereference(smmu_domain->invs);

                /*
                 * Avoid locking unless ATS is being used. No ATS invalidate can
                 * be going on after a domain is detached.
                 */
                locked = false;
-               if (invs->has_ats || READ_ONCE(invs->old)) {
+               if (invs->has_ats) {
                        read_lock(&invs->rwlock);
-                       if (invs->old) {
-                               read_unlock(&invs->rwlock);
-                               continue;
-                       }
                        locked = true;
                }
                break;
        }

Thanks
Nicolin