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;
Date:   Tue, 30 Aug 2022 10:29:50 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To:     Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>,
        Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        Liu Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
        Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>,
        Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@linaro.org>,
        Zhu Tony <tony.zhu@intel.com>, iommu@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 07/17] iommu: Try to allocate blocking domain when
 probing device
Message-ID: <Yw4Qzif8W53ykR6K@nvidia.com>
References: <20220826121141.50743-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <20220826121141.50743-8-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <YwjeL2SVmdRpoWb6@nvidia.com>
 <316f6575-59ea-08e3-aaaf-bc1e4f42a574@linux.intel.com>
 <Ywz3A3tHEzY+Sf7b@nvidia.com>
 <c7d71936-ea06-3a71-d13a-cedd108413b5@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c7d71936-ea06-3a71-d13a-cedd108413b5@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0: =?us-ascii?Q?aU7P8ygSAZoTQ6VF87kWyju4EJZsJ+ZZBI+6ZDbrZy8YPwcVp9NpTky9h++k?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?mkFInbPHsZWkw34nKC/v2jsJ/Ys7z6x1hRDpeynXZtl4iWce1iHFcvw8KABK?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?mqw2Iik8ePYk0uXGcCf/w6HlZCkA6DdIIdgzGIzgxr04p1WEr1bQgKY5dClg?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?lLGCCgywuua5vFT05yK3MGG5MFwQDFAK5sEUnADN1j2rtX+zwbNWHolQZoUM?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?X3Z24OqPHoFVlukQvrtoI2zzEqRkBCEu9Y8VXlq/iSqEPEAKgQenDNTUKwKP?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?MDr7vSz8Gc9OVP0eigcGkOhUcXu81u2O4nRXp6dtMTFUo+CwTnA0pGAiJyqi?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?PiQo5dXarsmuTc/uav0ADlC7NO62NZJFlosyQXchQnzWyQCfZLTFBoc/8sqg?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Ces0JxmZ/+1QgtZXHFQxxqR3U1flvQOUkXIwjOFCTF5vi6dGednsDQ1ZnIxd?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?30B16Y2PGeahpECjk496sjdNWtc6p/d2Oz7SBfOgSC4ZHGA8o2Tc0PAS5mkt?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?eOWkRwBAUUZuoXi02rk6sw7rndMH21Y2targIZ6EqjFZIm8bAiCd0Sj+w94Y?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?KhYIwB6fIRko9G6pNJr+yBGuAAL/r/ClvupVdOYABdI3uc5UVNQxH68si7zN?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?D1acjtbFfHns0bk2GIOxZfxdCCAlFMIFIBbM+1o5VXsy7fc4N0VGtxYVJrEq?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?TlV3/BAG6VmKZ7uhA8gkS4ucZgTfzbSkKb8JCfQFd0TgW9CX6hcph/HQbPpE?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?JzOs2Vohx4IKquuqD64bXZVKzL5RmclglCDNrF6MhZlIQC6yIOGrI7yE36hm?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?bwViKL01AdJIzOhqc94PVhMDOP6TPUEO07K9Up8o06SXyonNUURXk2HNNqKM?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Zq2duErmgiujWgRuAKogR2+C/bOb9/Ta1p3jkLpJnvC15wl9ueCZ5ryrgRRW?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Z/enlB5fjx7dyRmo2m93vFtwLaJ4WGlDPmHlPyVmi8oy8tiOrxKKNRekQySS?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?MD1UOc3SyLngNV1LB6E2qAqh1joGVWIMcAe0HShYzQJ63Ul6oYwYAXiBPEe0?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?bpfS5p9tacN03MeOn+1iPn4I6opkJdRYIxizAqbiSF3sFWTQ5nMHRHfRL1cz?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?p5Gst49dPjIGhIZvzN7VVUCuBA21Cqf2Xti8sWMHGBpfpzMmyEL6uBHvGLFT?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?nhOC1wdqdUXk0cN2kLGOvFk9y6RFgvvgylP1ohOwQu+1MDQG24LeV8pzD7mL?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?5fLRosj3ZIqOXe7Ziwq5+0TPiIGO4l0G9HL2Hlcz0J/JCTnZZ9/tKQB5WwTe?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?dagmWInRND007CFSaI8kUHUU/uvuh/VDj84KcS3JBAxKCz/RMJXvzHrRQjIz?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?4owWPQrnslp0l9h582bfs4XV1psQpZ7QVwwuXthEsDv2e9O2jDt1ME6Bm4ED?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?fzGG/0CyYQ8alN7CNjGY0YF6jb+vR9FXdYIUqGRrsBWAmkBEqhQnrzmPeiPM?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?8KAeVIm+xIslVZ68e8alUMMTU+VgoXnR+58zI1vcqMmLRDwRSt027SanXDwn?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?7KaKGkIH0FbiJmg0BE+0GzqjDx7p02iwm+tWTI6C?=
X-OriginatorOrg: Nvidia.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c3860882-9b1d-4573-7b25-08da8a8bb802
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MN2PR12MB4192.namprd12.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Aug 2022 13:29:52.0010
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: +JTCPHWmxhWtehUlUsk52DG/kWbllhqj0YktMo97/sfakAgmxDAa/qi52+Ch0oW/
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR1201MB2467
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
        DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FORGED_SPF_HELO,
        RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE,
        T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 09:46:01AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 2022/8/30 01:27, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 11:40:24AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> > > On 2022/8/26 22:52, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 08:11:31PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> > > > > Allocate the blocking domain when probing devices if the driver supports
> > > > > blocking domain allocation. Otherwise, revert to the previous behavior,
> > > > > that is, use UNMANAGED domain instead when the blocking domain is needed.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu<baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > Tested-by: Zhangfei Gao<zhangfei.gao@linaro.org>
> > > > > Tested-by: Tony Zhu<tony.zhu@intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >    drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++------------
> > > > >    1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > This seems like a lot of overhead to allocate these things for every
> > > > group?
> > > > 
> > > > Why not add a simple refcount on the blocking domain instead and
> > > > allocate the domain on the pasid attach like we do for ownership?
> > > 
> > > I am working towards implementing static instance of blocking domain for
> > > each IOMMU driver, and then, there's no much overhead to allocate it in
> > > the probing device path.
> > 
> > Well, I thought about that and I don't think we can get
> > there in a short order.
> 
> Yes. Fair enough.
> 
> > Would rather you progress this series without
> > getting entangled in such a big adventure
> 
> Agreed. I will drop this patch and add below code in the iommu
> interface:
> 
> --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
> @@ -3219,6 +3219,26 @@ int iommu_attach_device_pasid(struct iommu_domain
> *domain,
>                 return -ENODEV;
> 
>         mutex_lock(&group->mutex);
> +
> +       /*
> +        * The underlying IOMMU driver needs to support blocking domain
> +        * allocation and the callback to block DMA transactions with a
> +        * specific PASID.
> +        */
> +       if (!group->blocking_domain) {
> +               group->blocking_domain = __iommu_domain_alloc(dev->bus,
> +                               IOMMU_DOMAIN_BLOCKED);
> +               if (!group->blocking_domain) {
> +                       ret = -ENODEV;
> +                       goto out_unlock;
> +               }
> +       }
> +
> +       if (!group->blocking_domain->ops->set_dev_pasid) {
> +               ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +               goto out_unlock;
> +       }
> +
>         curr = xa_cmpxchg(&group->pasid_array, pasid, NULL, domain,
> GFP_KERNEL);
>         if (curr) {
>                 ret = xa_err(curr) ? : -EBUSY;
> 
> Currently both ARM SMMUv3 and VT-d drivers use static blocking domain.
> Hence I didn't use a refcount for blocking domain release here.

I don't think that works in the general case, you can't just destroy
what is in group->blocking_domain..

Maybe all of this is just the good reason to go to a simple
device->ops->remove_dev_pasid() callback and forget about blocking
domain here.

Jason