Re: [PATCH 1/4] iommu/vt-d: Implement set device pasid op for default domain

[Jacob Pan]

Hi Jason,

On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 08:57:57 -0400, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 04:59:56PM -0800, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > On VT-d platforms, legacy DMA requests without PASID use device’s
> > default domain, where RID_PASID is always attached. Device drivers
> > can then use the DMA API for all in-kernel DMA on the RID.
> > 
> > Ideally, devices capable of using ENQCMDS can also transparently use the
> > default domain, consequently DMA API. However, VT-d architecture
> > dictates that the PASID used by ENQCMDS must be different from the
> > RID_PASID value.
> > 
> > To provide support for transparent use of DMA API with non-RID_PASID
> > value, this patch implements the set_dev_pasid() function for the
> > default domain. The idea is that device drivers wishing to use ENQCMDS
> > to submit work on buffers mapped by DMA API will call
> > iommu_attach_device_pasid() beforehand.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
> > index 10f657828d3a..a0cb3bc851ac 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c
> > @@ -4665,6 +4665,10 @@ static void intel_iommu_remove_dev_pasid(struct
> > device *dev, ioasid_t pasid) case IOMMU_DOMAIN_SVA:
> >  			intel_svm_remove_dev_pasid(dev, pasid);
> >  			break;
> > +		case IOMMU_DOMAIN_DMA:
> > +		case IOMMU_DOMAIN_DMA_FQ:
> > +		case IOMMU_DOMAIN_IDENTITY:  
> 
> Why do we need this switch statement anyhow?
For DMA API pasid, there is nothing special just let it fall through and
call 
	intel_pasid_tear_down_entry(iommu, dev, pasid, false);

> Something seems to have
> gone wrong here.. SVM shouldn't be special, 
I think all the trouble is caused by  the asymmetrical setup of
iommu_op.remove_dev_pasid() and iommu_domain_ops.set_dev_pasid()
Perhaps, we should "demote" remove_dev_pasid to iommu_domain_ops then we
don't have to check SVA specific things.

> and why does this call intel_pasid_tear_down_entry() twice on the SVA
> path?
Good catch, that seems to be unnecessary.

> It seems like all this is doing is flushing the PRI queue.
> A domain should have a dedicated flag unrelated to the type if it is
> using PRI and all PRI using domains should have the PRI queue flushed
> here, using the same code as flushing the PRI for a RID attachment.
Yes, or if the teardown op is domain-specific, then it works too?


Thanks,

Jacob