[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] xen/common: Guard iommu symbols with CONFIG_HAS_PASSTHROUGH




On 5/17/21 9:42 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Jan,

On 17/05/2021 12:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.05.2021 20:53, Connor Davis wrote:
--- a/xen/common/memory.c
+++ b/xen/common/memory.c
@@ -294,7 +294,9 @@ int guest_remove_page(struct domain *d, unsigned long gmfn)
      p2m_type_t p2mt;
  #endif
      mfn_t mfn;
+#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_PASSTHROUGH
      bool *dont_flush_p, dont_flush;
+#endif
      int rc;
    #ifdef CONFIG_X86
@@ -385,13 +387,17 @@ int guest_remove_page(struct domain *d, unsigned long gmfn)
       * Since we're likely to free the page below, we need to suspend
       * xenmem_add_to_physmap()'s suppressing of IOMMU TLB flushes.
       */
+#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_PASSTHROUGH
      dont_flush_p = &this_cpu(iommu_dont_flush_iotlb);
      dont_flush = *dont_flush_p;
      *dont_flush_p = false;
+#endif
        rc = guest_physmap_remove_page(d, _gfn(gmfn), mfn, 0);
  +#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_PASSTHROUGH
      *dont_flush_p = dont_flush;
+#endif
        /*
       * With the lack of an IOMMU on some platforms, domains with DMA-capable @@ -839,11 +845,13 @@ int xenmem_add_to_physmap(struct domain *d, struct xen_add_to_physmap *xatp,
      xatp->gpfn += start;
      xatp->size -= start;
  +#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_PASSTHROUGH
      if ( is_iommu_enabled(d) )
      {
         this_cpu(iommu_dont_flush_iotlb) = 1;
         extra.ppage = &pages[0];
      }
+#endif
        while ( xatp->size > done )
      {
@@ -868,6 +876,7 @@ int xenmem_add_to_physmap(struct domain *d, struct xen_add_to_physmap *xatp,
          }
      }
  +#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_PASSTHROUGH
      if ( is_iommu_enabled(d) )
      {
          int ret;
@@ -894,6 +903,7 @@ int xenmem_add_to_physmap(struct domain *d, struct xen_add_to_physmap *xatp,
          if ( unlikely(ret) && rc >= 0 )
              rc = ret;
      }
+#endif
        return rc;
  }

I wonder whether all of these wouldn't better become CONFIG_X86:
ISTR Julien indicating that he doesn't see the override getting used
on Arm. (Julien, please correct me if I'm misremembering.)

Right, so far, I haven't been in favor to introduce it because:
   1) The P2M code may free some memory. So you can't always ignore the flush (I think this is wrong for the upper layer to know when this can happen).    2) It is unclear what happen if the IOMMU TLBs and the PT contains different mappings (I received conflicted advice).

So it is better to always flush and as early as possible.

So keep it as is or switch to CONFIG_X86?


Thanks,

Connor




 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.