Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-70785-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <11a2a48f-aad9-42b0-a9a1-29ea1c0f7f45@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 14:47:09 +0800
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cc: baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, Huang Jiaqing <jiaqing.huang@intel.com>,
 iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] iommu/vt-d: Use rbtree to track iommu probed devices
To: Ethan Zhao <haifeng.zhao@linux.intel.com>, Joerg Roedel
 <joro@8bytes.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
 Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
 Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
References: <20240215072249.4465-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <20240215072249.4465-2-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <eace2ec0-0b8b-450d-b05f-7b7ca3e473a7@linux.intel.com>
 <942dd645-7475-4c43-99c6-304601fb09eb@linux.intel.com>
 <ba137a34-68d1-4f61-a6dd-30841610c079@linux.intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <ba137a34-68d1-4f61-a6dd-30841610c079@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 2024/2/19 13:33, Ethan Zhao wrote:
> On 2/19/2024 12:04 PM, Baolu Lu wrote:
>> On 2024/2/19 10:45, Ethan Zhao wrote:
>>>> @@ -4264,25 +4313,34 @@ static struct iommu_device 
>>>> *intel_iommu_probe_device(struct device *dev)
>>>>       }
>>>>       dev_iommu_priv_set(dev, info);
>>>> +    ret = device_rbtree_insert(iommu, info);
>>>> +    if (ret)
>>>> +        goto free;
>>>>       if (sm_supported(iommu) && !dev_is_real_dma_subdevice(dev)) {
>>>>           ret = intel_pasid_alloc_table(dev);
>>>>           if (ret) {
>>>>               dev_err(dev, "PASID table allocation failed\n");
>>>> -            kfree(info);
>>>> -            return ERR_PTR(ret);
>>>> +            goto clear_rbtree;
>>>>           }
>>>>       }
>>>>       intel_iommu_debugfs_create_dev(info);
>>>>       return &iommu->iommu;
>>>> +clear_rbtree:
>>>> +    device_rbtree_remove(info);
>>>> +free:
>>>> +    kfree(info);
>>>> +
>>>> +    return ERR_PTR(ret);
>>>>   }
>>>>   static void intel_iommu_release_device(struct device *dev)
>>>>   {
>>>>       struct device_domain_info *info = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
>>>> +    device_rbtree_remove(info);
>>>
>>> Perhpas too early here to remove dev from the rbtree, if it is wanted in
>>> devTLB invalidation steps in intel_pasid_tear_down_entry().
>>
>> Perhaps the caller of device_rbtree_find() should not depend on the
> 
> I didn't catch up here. seems have to maintain the lifecycle as PCI 
> subsystem
> does, or there would be mutli instances for the same BDF(e.g. the device is
> removed then plugged, again and again.....in the same slot) in the rbtree ?

There should not be multiple instances for a same BDF. The lifecycle of
a device is managed by the device and driver core. The iommu subsystem
registers a notification to the core and take actions on device ADD and
REMOVE events.

Best regards,
baolu