Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 4/6] iommu/vt-d: Add support for IOMMU default DMA
 mode build options
To:     Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>, <joro@8bytes.org>,
        <will@kernel.org>, <dwmw2@infradead.org>, <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        <corbet@lwn.net>
CC:     <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        <linuxarm@huawei.com>, <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>,
        <chenxiang66@hisilicon.com>, <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>
References: <1623841437-211832-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com>
 <1623841437-211832-5-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com>
 <46dbce5c-1c2b-60d4-df56-d2b95a959425@linux.intel.com>
 <f3fe6c4b-f360-ab7b-7ad2-ced63269499d@huawei.com>
 <d53a6472-4628-313e-30a5-f76e016c9cb9@linux.intel.com>
From:   John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <b654480e-d5ac-9e4c-1074-1158cccc5806@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Jun 2021 08:31:05 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d53a6472-4628-313e-30a5-f76e016c9cb9@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 18/06/2021 02:46, Lu Baolu wrote:

Hi baolu,

>> I need to change that. How about this:
>>
>> bool print_warning = false;
>>
>> for_each_active_iommu(iommu, drhd) {
>>      /*
>>       * The flush queue implementation does not perform
>>       * page-selective invalidations that are required for efficient
>>       * TLB flushes in virtual environments.  The benefit of batching
>>       * is likely to be much lower than the overhead of synchronizing
>>       * the virtual and physical IOMMU page-tables.
>>       */
>>      if (!print_warning && cap_caching_mode(iommu->cap)) {
>>          pr_warn("IOMMU batching disallowed due to virtualization\n");
>>          iommu_set_dma_strict(true);
>>          print_warning = true;
>>      }
>>      ...
>> }
>>
>> or use pr_warn_once().
> 
>  From my p.o.v, pr_xxxx_once() is better.
> 
> How about using a pr_info_once()? I don't think it's a warning, it's
> just a policy choice in VM environment.

ok, I can go with that, which Robin mostly agrees with.

Thanks,
John