RE: [PATCH v2 02/12] iommu/vt-d: Manage scalalble mode PASID tables

[Tian, Kevin]

> From: Lu Baolu [mailto:baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 10:46 AM
>
[...] 
> >> @@ -143,8 +142,9 @@ int intel_pasid_alloc_table(struct device *dev)
> >>   		return -ENOMEM;
> >>   	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pasid_table->dev);
> >>
> >> -	size = sizeof(struct pasid_entry);
> >> +	size = sizeof(struct pasid_dir_entry);
> >>   	count = min_t(int, pci_max_pasids(to_pci_dev(dev)),
> >> intel_pasid_max_id);
> >> +	count >>= PASID_PDE_SHIFT;
> >>   	order = get_order(size * count);
> >>   	pages = alloc_pages_node(info->iommu->node,
> >>   				 GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_ZERO,
> >> @@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ int intel_pasid_alloc_table(struct device *dev)
> >>
> >>   	pasid_table->table = page_address(pages);
> >>   	pasid_table->order = order;
> >> -	pasid_table->max_pasid = count;
> >> +	pasid_table->max_pasid = count << PASID_PDE_SHIFT;
> >
> > are you sure of that count is PDE_SHIFT aligned? otherwise >>
> > then << would lose some bits. If sure, then better add some check.
> 
> I am making the max_pasid PDE_SHIFT aligned as the result of shift
> operations.
> 

earlier:
> >>   	count = min_t(int, pci_max_pasids(to_pci_dev(dev)),
> >> intel_pasid_max_id);

so you decided to truncate count to be PDE_SHIFT aligned. Is PASID
value user configurable? if not, then it's fine.

> >
> >>
> >>   attach_out:
> >>   	device_attach_pasid_table(info, pasid_table);
> >> @@ -162,14 +162,33 @@ int intel_pasid_alloc_table(struct device *dev)
> >>   	return 0;
> >>   }
> >>
> >> +/* Get PRESENT bit of a PASID directory entry. */
> >> +static inline bool
> >> +pasid_pde_is_present(struct pasid_dir_entry *pde)
> >> +{
> >> +	return READ_ONCE(pde->val) & PASID_PTE_PRESENT;
> >
> > curious why adding READ_ONCE specifically for PASID structure,
> > but not used for any other existing vtd structures? Is it to address
> > some specific requirement on PASID structure as defined in spec?
> 
> READ/WRITE_ONCE are used in pasid entry read/write to prevent the
> compiler from merging, refetching or reordering successive instances of
> read/write.
> 

that's fine. I'm just curious why this is the first user of such macros
in intel-iommu driver. Even before with ecs we have PASID table too.

Thanks
Kevin