[PATCH v4 5/7] powerpc/iommu: Move iommu_table cleaning routine to iommu_table_clean

[Brian King]

On 7/21/20 5:13 PM, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 14:59 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>
>> On 16/07/2020 17:16, Leonardo Bras wrote:
>>> Move the part of iommu_table_free() that does struct iommu_table cleaning
>>> into iommu_table_clean, so we can invoke it separately.
>>>
>>> This new function is useful for cleaning struct iommu_table before
>>> initializing it again with a new DMA window, without having it freed and
>>> allocated again.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras <leobras.c at gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++------------
>>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c
>>> index 9704f3f76e63..c3242253a4e7 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c
>>> @@ -735,21 +735,10 @@ struct iommu_table *iommu_init_table(struct iommu_table *tbl, int nid,
>>>  	return tbl;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> -static void iommu_table_free(struct kref *kref)
>>> +static void iommu_table_clean(struct iommu_table *tbl)
>>
>> iommu_table_free() + iommu_init_table() + set_iommu_table_base() should
>> work too, why new helper?
> 
> iommu_table_free() also frees the tbl, which would need allocate it
> again (new address) and to fill it up again, unnecessarily. 
> I think it's a better approach to only change what is needed.
> 
>> There is also iommu_table_clear() which does a different thing so you
>> need a better name.
> 
> I agree.
> I had not noticed this other function before sending the patchset. What
> would be a better name though? __iommu_table_free()? 
> 
>> Second, iommu_table_free
>> use and it would be ok as we would only see this when hot-unplugging a
>> PE because we always kept the default window.
>> Btw you must be seeing these warnings now every time you create DDW with
>> these patches as at least the first page is reserved, do not you?
> 
> It does not print a warning.
> I noticed other warnings, but not this one from iommu_table_free():
> /* verify that table contains no entries */
> if (!bitmap_empty(tbl->it_ma
> p, tbl->it_size))
> 	pr_warn("%s: Unexpected TCEs\n", __func__);
> 
> Before that, iommu_table_release_pages(tbl) is supposed to clear the 
> bitmap, so this only tests for a tce that is created in this short period.
> 
>> Since we are replacing a table for a device which is still in the
>> system, we should not try messing with its DMA if it already has
>> mappings so the warning should become an error preventing DDW. It is
>> rather hard to trigger in practice but I could hack a driver to ask for
>> 32bit DMA mask first, map few pages and then ask for 64bit DMA mask, it
>> is not illegal, I think. So this needs a new helper - "bool
>> iommu_table_in_use(tbl)" - to use in enable_ddw(). Or I am overthinking
>> this?... Thanks,
> 
> As of today, there seems to be nothing like that happening in the
> driver I am testing. 
> I spoke to Brian King on slack, and he mentioned that at the point DDW
> is created there should be no allocations in place.

I think there are a couple of scenarios here. One is where there is a DMA
allocation prior to a call to set the DMA mask. Second scenario is if the
driver makes multiple calls to set the DMA mask. I would argue that a properly
written driver should tell the IOMMU subsystem what DMA mask it supports prior
to allocating DMA memroy. Documentation/core-api/dma-api-howto.rst should
describe what is legal and what is not.

It might be reasonable to declare its not allowed to allocate DMA memory
and then later change the DMA mask and clearly call this out in the documentation
if its not already.

-Brian


-- 
Brian King
Power Linux I/O
IBM Linux Technology Center