[PATCH v6 17/25] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Implement iommu_sva_bind/unbind()

Jean-Philippe Brucker jean-philippe at linaro.org
Mon May 4 16:06:39 UTC 2020


On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 05:15:52AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > @@ -432,6 +432,7 @@ config ARM_SMMU_V3
> >  	tristate "ARM Ltd. System MMU Version 3 (SMMUv3) Support"
> >  	depends on ARM64
> >  	select IOMMU_API
> > +	select IOMMU_SVA
> >  	select IOMMU_IO_PGTABLE_LPAE
> >  	select GENERIC_MSI_IRQ_DOMAIN
> 
> Doesn't this need to select MMU_NOTIFIER now?

Yes, will fix

> > +	struct mmu_notifier_ops		mn_ops;
> 
> Note: not a pointer.
> 
> > +	/* If bind() was already called for this (dev, mm) pair, reuse it. */
> > +	list_for_each_entry(bond, &master->bonds, list) {
> > +		if (bond->mm == mm) {
> > +			refcount_inc(&bond->refs);
> > +			return &bond->sva;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	mn = mmu_notifier_get(&smmu_domain->mn_ops, mm);
> > +	if (IS_ERR(mn))
> > +		return ERR_CAST(mn);
> 
> Which seems to be to avoid mmu_notifier_get reusing notifiers registered
> by other arm_smmu_master instance right?

Yes, although I'm registering a single mmu notifier per (domain, mm) pair,
not (master, mm), because the SMMU driver keeps one set of PASID tables
per IOMMU domain.

> Either you could just use plain old mmu_notifier_register to avoid
> the reuse.  Or we could enhance the mmu_notifier_get to pass a private
> oaque instance ID pointer, which is checked in addition to the ops,
> and you could probably kill off the bonds list and lookup.

Going back to mmu_notifier_register() seems better for now. I don't want
to change the core APIs just for this driver, because it's likely to
change again when more hardware starts appearing and we optimize it.

Thanks,
Jean



More information about the iommu mailing list