Re: [PATCH v7 01/15] swiotlb: Refactor swiotlb init functions

[Claire Chang <tientzu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 2:50 AM Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/17/2021 11:42 PM, Claire Chang wrote:
> > Add a new function, swiotlb_init_io_tlb_mem, for the io_tlb_mem struct
> > initialization to make the code reusable.
> >
> > Note that we now also call set_memory_decrypted in swiotlb_init_with_tbl.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Claire Chang <tientzu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  kernel/dma/swiotlb.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> >  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> > index 8ca7d505d61c..d3232fc19385 100644
> > --- a/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> > +++ b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
> > @@ -168,9 +168,30 @@ void __init swiotlb_update_mem_attributes(void)
> >       memset(vaddr, 0, bytes);
> >  }
> >
> > -int __init swiotlb_init_with_tbl(char *tlb, unsigned long nslabs, int 
> > verbose)
> > +static void swiotlb_init_io_tlb_mem(struct io_tlb_mem *mem, phys_addr_t 
> > start,
> > +                                 unsigned long nslabs, bool late_alloc)
> >  {
> > +     void *vaddr = phys_to_virt(start);
> >       unsigned long bytes = nslabs << IO_TLB_SHIFT, i;
> > +
> > +     mem->nslabs = nslabs;
> > +     mem->start = start;
> > +     mem->end = mem->start + bytes;
> > +     mem->index = 0;
> > +     mem->late_alloc = late_alloc;
> > +     spin_lock_init(&mem->lock);
> > +     for (i = 0; i < mem->nslabs; i++) {
> > +             mem->slots[i].list = IO_TLB_SEGSIZE - io_tlb_offset(i);
> > +             mem->slots[i].orig_addr = INVALID_PHYS_ADDR;
> > +             mem->slots[i].alloc_size = 0;
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     set_memory_decrypted((unsigned long)vaddr, bytes >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> > +     memset(vaddr, 0, bytes);
>
> You are doing an unconditional set_memory_decrypted() followed by a
> memset here, and then:
>
> > +}
> > +
> > +int __init swiotlb_init_with_tbl(char *tlb, unsigned long nslabs, int 
> > verbose)
> > +{
> >       struct io_tlb_mem *mem;
> >       size_t alloc_size;
> >
> > @@ -186,16 +207,8 @@ int __init swiotlb_init_with_tbl(char *tlb, unsigned 
> > long nslabs, int verbose)
> >       if (!mem)
> >               panic("%s: Failed to allocate %zu bytes align=0x%lx\n",
> >                     __func__, alloc_size, PAGE_SIZE);
> > -     mem->nslabs = nslabs;
> > -     mem->start = __pa(tlb);
> > -     mem->end = mem->start + bytes;
> > -     mem->index = 0;
> > -     spin_lock_init(&mem->lock);
> > -     for (i = 0; i < mem->nslabs; i++) {
> > -             mem->slots[i].list = IO_TLB_SEGSIZE - io_tlb_offset(i);
> > -             mem->slots[i].orig_addr = INVALID_PHYS_ADDR;
> > -             mem->slots[i].alloc_size = 0;
> > -     }
> > +
> > +     swiotlb_init_io_tlb_mem(mem, __pa(tlb), nslabs, false);
>
> You convert this call site with swiotlb_init_io_tlb_mem() which did not
> do the set_memory_decrypted()+memset(). Is this okay or should
> swiotlb_init_io_tlb_mem() add an additional argument to do this
> conditionally?

I'm actually not sure if this it okay. If not, will add an additional
argument for it.

> --
> Florian