Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.118.232 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.118.232; helo=mail.nvidia.com; pr=C
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:58:39 -0700
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
CC:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
        "joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
        "alex.williamson@redhat.com" <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        "robin.murphy@arm.com" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        "baolu.lu@linux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
        "cohuck@redhat.com" <cohuck@redhat.com>,
        "eric.auger@redhat.com" <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "mjrosato@linux.ibm.com" <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>,
        "chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com" <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>,
        "yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com" <yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com>,
        "peterx@redhat.com" <peterx@redhat.com>,
        "jasowang@redhat.com" <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        "shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com" 
        <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>,
        "lulu@redhat.com" <lulu@redhat.com>,
        "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
        "iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Duan, Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@intel.com>,
        "Martins, Joao" <joao.m.martins@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/17] iommufd: Always setup MSI and anforce cc on
 kernel-managed domains
Message-ID: <ZS7nb+mKanGFXhZY@Asurada-Nvidia>
References: <20230921075138.124099-1-yi.l.liu@intel.com>
 <20230921075138.124099-9-yi.l.liu@intel.com>
 <BN9PR11MB527658EAF017FF3576667EEA8CC3A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ZSnkiKoCspmG1+/j@Asurada-Nvidia>
 <BN9PR11MB52763227866603ED7795AA068CD7A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <20231016115736.GP3952@nvidia.com>
 <BN9PR11MB5276FDC375685CE04A7AD93B8CD6A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <20231017155301.GH3952@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231017155301.GH3952@nvidia.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2023 19:58:59.0879
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: bc9418bb-8bef-4100-e812-08dbcf4b80ba
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.118.232];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: SN1PEPF000252A1.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY5PR12MB6034
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lipwig.vger.email
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.4 (lipwig.vger.email [0.0.0.0]); Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:59:15 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 12:53:01PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 08:52:49AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > I prefer to removing enforce_cc in attach fn completely then no parent
> > trick in this patch. Just keep it in hwpt_alloc and leave to iommu driver to
> > figure out the attaching compatibility:
> 
> You are basically saying to set the cc mode during creation because we
> know the idev at that moment and can tell if it should be on/off?
> 
> It seems reasonable, but I can't remember why it is in the attach path
> at the moment.

This was the commit adding it in the alloc path:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/8e897628-61fa-b3fb-b609-44eeda11b45e@arm.com/

The older code was doing a hwpt "upgrade" from !cc to cc:
-       /*
-        * Try to upgrade the domain we have, it is an iommu driver bug to
-        * report IOMMU_CAP_ENFORCE_CACHE_COHERENCY but fail
-        * enforce_cache_coherency when there are no devices attached to the
-        * domain.
-        */
-       if (idev->enforce_cache_coherency && !hwpt->enforce_cache_coherency) {
-               if (hwpt->domain->ops->enforce_cache_coherency)
-                       hwpt->enforce_cache_coherency =
-                               hwpt->domain->ops->enforce_cache_coherency(
-                                       hwpt->domain);

If we remove the enforce_cc call in the attach path and let the
driver decide whether to enforce or reject in attach_dev calls,
there seems to be no point in tracking an enforce_cache_coherency
flag in the IOMMUFD pathway but only for the VFIO_DMA_CC_IOMMU
extension check in the vfio-compat pathway?

Thanks
Nic