Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <d8f2646d-be6a-9636-3e9d-8e1d65ecb0c4@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jul 2022 16:47:00 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Cc:     baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.com>,
        "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>,
        Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
        "Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>,
        Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@linaro.org>,
        "Zhu, Tony" <tony.zhu@intel.com>,
        "iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 08/12] iommu/sva: Refactoring
 iommu_sva_bind/unbind_device()
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
References: <20220705050710.2887204-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <20220705050710.2887204-9-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <20220723142650.GH79279@nvidia.com>
 <bffb6e2d-d310-49b9-0725-37ab4263c22d@linux.intel.com>
 <BN9PR11MB52764D3E07E6755EF52DDC138C959@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <b868cd13-4902-7d60-048a-31bb92b94cda@linux.intel.com>
 <20220725144758.GG3747@nvidia.com>
From:   Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220725144758.GG3747@nvidia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2022/7/25 22:47, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 06:22:06PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
>> On 2022/7/25 15:50, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>>> From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2022 9:48 PM
>>>>>
>>>>> The API is really refcounting the PASID:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +struct iommu_sva *iommu_sva_bind_device(struct device *dev,
>>>>>> +					struct mm_struct *mm);
>>>>>> +void iommu_sva_unbind_device(struct iommu_sva *handle);
>>>>>
>>>>> So what you need to do is store that 'iommu_sva' in the group's PASID
>>>>> xarray.
>>>>>
>>>>> The bind logic would be
>>>>>
>>>>>      sva = xa_load(group->pasid, mm->pasid)
>>>>>      if (sva)
>>>>>         refcount_inc(sva->users)
>>>>>         return sva
>>>>>      sva = kalloc
>>>>>      sva->domain = domain
>>>>>      xa_store(group->pasid, sva);
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the suggestion. It makes a lot of sense to me.
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, I'd like to separate the generic data from the caller-
>>>> specific things because the group->pasid_array should also be able to
>>>> serve other usages. Hence, the attach/detach_device_pasid interfaces
>>>> might be changed like below:
>>>>
>>>> /* Collection of per-pasid IOMMU data */
>>>> struct group_pasid {
>>>> 	struct iommu_domain *domain;
>>>> 	void *priv;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is there any reason why pasid refcnt is sva specific and needs to be
>>> in a priv field?
>>
>> I am going to store the iommu_sva data which represents the bind
>> relationship between device and domain.
> 
> Why do you need that?
> 
> If you are starting at the pasid xarray then you already know the
> group/device, so we don't need to store it again.
> 
> The only thing needed is the refcount so just store a refcount in this
> structure and be done with it. If someone needs to add something later
> then we can use a union or something, but right now adding an untagged
> void * is bad.

Fair enough. I will update it accordingly.

Best regards,
baolu