Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v10 2/3] vt-d: synchronize for Device-TLB flush one by one

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 18.05.16 at 10:53, <quan.xu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On May 17, 2016 8:37 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>wrote:
>> >>> On 22.04.16 at 12:54, <quan.xu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > -static void queue_invalidate_iotlb(struct iommu *iommu,
>> > -    u8 granu, u8 dr, u8 dw, u16 did, u8 am, u8 ih, u64 addr)
>> > +static int __must_check queue_invalidate_iotlb_sync(struct iommu
>> *iommu,
>> > +                                                    u8 granu, u8 dr, u8 
>> > dw,
>> > +                                                    u16 did, u8 am, u8 ih,
>> > +                                                    u64 addr)
>> >  {
>> >      unsigned long flags;
>> >      unsigned int index;
>> > @@ -133,10 +141,12 @@ static void queue_invalidate_iotlb(struct iommu
>> *iommu,
>> >      unmap_vtd_domain_page(qinval_entries);
>> >      qinval_update_qtail(iommu, index);
>> >      spin_unlock_irqrestore(&iommu->register_lock, flags);
>> > +
>> > +    return invalidate_sync(iommu);
>> >  }
>> 
>> With this, ...
>> 
>> > @@ -346,9 +353,13 @@ static int flush_iotlb_qi(
>> >          if (cap_read_drain(iommu->cap))
>> >              dr = 1;
>> >          /* Need to conside the ih bit later */
>> > -        queue_invalidate_iotlb(iommu,
>> > -                               type >> DMA_TLB_FLUSH_GRANU_OFFSET, dr,
>> > -                               dw, did, size_order, 0, addr);
>> > +        ret = queue_invalidate_iotlb_sync(iommu,
>> > +                                          type >> 
>> > DMA_TLB_FLUSH_GRANU_OFFSET,
>> > +                                          dr, dw, did, size_order, 0, 
>> > addr);
>> > +
>> > +        if ( ret )
>> > +            return ret;
>> > +
>> >          if ( flush_dev_iotlb )
>> >              ret = dev_invalidate_iotlb(iommu, did, addr, size_order, 
>> > type);
>> >          rc = invalidate_sync(iommu);
>> 
>> ... why does this invalidate_sync() not go away?
>> 
> 
> Oh, it is your suggestion -- leaving the existing logic as is would be better 
> - 
> best effort invalidation even when an error has occurred.
> 
> http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-04/msg00523.html 

Look like this was a bad comment of mine (resulting from
dev_invalidate_iotlb(), other than the other respective functions,
not getting a _sync tag added), and I would have appreciated if
you had simply pointed out the redundancy. Please remember
that the review process is bi-directional, and hence doesn't mean
you need to blindly do everything a reviewer asks for: Things you
agree with should be changed in code. For things you don't agree
with you should reply verbally, explaining why a requested change
shouldn't be done.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel