Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] iommu/amd: Add support for fast IOTLB flushing
To:     Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
Cc:     iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        jroedel@suse.de
References: <1517374874-93978-1-git-send-email-suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
 <20180213132959.kkavgzt37hm7n2tt@8bytes.org>
From:   Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
Message-ID: <2e9a6834-36b2-8f65-ab07-914b8e3d5671@amd.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:05:57 +0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180213132959.kkavgzt37hm7n2tt@8bytes.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: amd.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Feb 2018 07:06:11.4432 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 38fbc848-89eb-40d0-853d-08d578f997b7
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR12MB1732
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Joerg,

On 2/13/18 8:29 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> Hi Suravee,
> 
> thanks for working on this.
> 
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:01:14AM -0500, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>> +static void amd_iommu_iotlb_range_add(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>> +				      unsigned long iova, size_t size)
>> +{
>> +	struct amd_iommu_flush_entries *entry, *p;
>> +	unsigned long flags;
>> +	bool found = false;
>> +
>> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&amd_iommu_flush_list_lock, flags);
> 
> I am not happy with introducing or using global locks when they are not
> necessary. Can this be a per-domain lock?
> 
> Besides, did you check it makes sense to actually keep track of the
> ranges here? My approach would be to just make iotlb_range_add() an noop
> and do a full domain flush in iotlb_sync(). But maybe you did
> measurements you can share here to show there is a benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> 	Joerg
> 

Alright, I'll send out v4 w/ iotlb_range_add() as no-op, and iotlb_sync()
as full domain flush. This should be sufficient to get start with adopting
the fast TLB flushing interface.

I'll submit support for fine-grain TLB invalidation as a separate series.

Thanks,
Suravee