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 0/5] iommu: Some IOVA code reorganisation
To:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
CC:     <joro@8bytes.org>, <mst@redhat.com>, <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        <robin.murphy@arm.com>, <xieyongji@bytedance.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>, <linuxarm@huawei.com>,
        <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>, <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
References: <1632477717-5254-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com>
 <20211004114418.GC27373@willie-the-truck>
From:   John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <1ff2aeb0-a5d0-f2a4-bd5d-d8f9669a54ed@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Oct 2021 14:56:49 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.12.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20211004114418.GC27373@willie-the-truck>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 04/10/2021 12:44, Will Deacon wrote:


> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 06:01:52PM +0800, John Garry wrote:
>> The IOVA domain structure is a bit overloaded, holding:
>> - IOVA tree management
>> - FQ control
>> - IOVA rcache memories
>>
>> Indeed only a couple of IOVA users use the rcache, and only dma-iommu.c
>> uses the FQ feature.
>>
>> This series separates out that structure. In addition, it moves the FQ
>> code into dma-iommu.c . This is not strictly necessary, but it does make
>> it easier for the FQ domain lookup the rcache domain.
>>
>> The rcache code stays where it is, as it may be reworked in future, so
>> there is not much point in relocating and then discarding.
>>
>> This topic was initially discussed and suggested (I think) by Robin here:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/1d06eda1-9961-d023-f5e7-fe87e768f067@arm.com/
> 

Hi Will,

> It would be useful to have Robin's Ack on patches 2-4. The implementation
> looks straightforward to me, but the thread above isn't very clear about
> what is being suggested.

Sure, I intentionally didn't add names to patches so avoid possible 
incorrect attribution.

> 
> To play devil's advocate: there aren't many direct users of the iovad code:
> either they'll die out entirely (and everybody will use the dma-iommu code)
> and it's fine having the flush queue code where it is, or we'll get more
> users and the likelihood of somebody else wanting flush queues increases.
> 

I make it 5x direct users (including vdpa).

Anyway, as I mentioned, I'm not totally determined to relocate the FQ 
code. It's just that dma-iommu is the only user today and co-locating 
makes the iova rcache domain info lookup easier from the FQ code.

Thanks,
John