[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] x86/SVM-IOMMU: Don't opencode memcpy() in queue_iommu_command()
>>> On 24.09.18 at 14:09, <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andrew Cooper >> Sent: 24 September 2018 13:06 >> To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>; Xen-devel <xen- >> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>; Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>; Roger >> Pau Monne <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>; Suravee Suthikulpanit >> <suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx>; Brian Woods <brian.woods@xxxxxxx> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/SVM-IOMMU: Don't opencode memcpy() in >> queue_iommu_command() >> >> On 24/09/18 12:59, Paul Durrant wrote: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx] >> >> Sent: 24 September 2018 11:55 >> >> To: Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Cc: Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jan Beulich >> >> <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>; Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>; Roger Pau Monne >> >> <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>; Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>; Suravee >> >> Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx>; Brian Woods >> >> <brian.woods@xxxxxxx> >> >> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] x86/SVM-IOMMU: Don't opencode memcpy() in >> >> queue_iommu_command() >> >> >> >> In practice, this allows the compiler to replace the loop with a pair >> of >> >> movs. >> >> >> >> No functional change. >> > Well there is a potential functional change... >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> --- >> >> CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> >> >> CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> CC: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> CC: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> CC: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx> >> >> CC: Brian Woods <brian.woods@xxxxxxx> >> >> --- >> >> xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu_cmd.c | 12 ++++-------- >> >> xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/svm/amd-iommu-defs.h | 1 - >> >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu_cmd.c >> >> b/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu_cmd.c >> >> index 08247fa..c6c0b4f 100644 >> >> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu_cmd.c >> >> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/iommu_cmd.c >> >> @@ -24,8 +24,7 @@ >> >> >> >> static int queue_iommu_command(struct amd_iommu *iommu, u32 cmd[]) >> >> { >> >> - u32 tail, head, *cmd_buffer; >> >> - int i; >> >> + uint32_t tail, head; >> >> >> >> tail = iommu->cmd_buffer.tail; >> >> if ( ++tail == iommu->cmd_buffer.entries ) >> >> @@ -35,12 +34,9 @@ static int queue_iommu_command(struct amd_iommu >> *iommu, >> >> u32 cmd[]) >> >> IOMMU_CMD_BUFFER_HEAD_OFFSET)); >> >> if ( head != tail ) >> >> { >> >> - cmd_buffer = (u32 *)(iommu->cmd_buffer.buffer + >> >> - (iommu->cmd_buffer.tail * >> >> - IOMMU_CMD_BUFFER_ENTRY_SIZE)); >> >> - >> >> - for ( i = 0; i < IOMMU_CMD_BUFFER_U32_PER_ENTRY; i++ ) >> >> - cmd_buffer[i] = cmd[i]; >> >> + memcpy(iommu->cmd_buffer.buffer + >> >> + (iommu->cmd_buffer.tail * IOMMU_CMD_BUFFER_ENTRY_SIZE), >> >> + cmd, IOMMU_CMD_BUFFER_ENTRY_SIZE); >> > ...since the built-in memcpy may not guarantee to the copy in 4 byte >> chunks in ascending order. >> >> "No functional change" != "The binary is identical". >> >> The functionality of queue_iommu_command() does not change, even if it's >> code generation does. It is just copying bytes into a shared ring, >> bounded later by updating the tail pointer. > > Yes, my point is that the ring is shared and so DMA by the h/w may race. > This is clearly not a good situation but the fact that the code generation > may change may have side effects. All writes to the ring occur strictly before the update of the tail pointer (in MMIO), no matter how the copying gets done. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |