Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] x86/iommu: switch hwdom IOMMU to use a rangeset

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 04:47:15PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 05.12.2023 16:43, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 04:27:05PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 04.12.2023 10:43, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> >>> @@ -476,58 +406,55 @@ void __hwdom_init arch_iommu_hwdom_init(struct 
> >>> domain *d)
> >>>      if ( !map )
> >>>          panic("IOMMU init: unable to allocate rangeset\n");
> >>>  
> >>> -    max_pfn = (GB(4) >> PAGE_SHIFT) - 1;
> >>> -    top = max(max_pdx, pfn_to_pdx(max_pfn) + 1);
> >>> +    if ( iommu_hwdom_inclusive )
> >>> +    {
> >>> +        /* Add the whole range below 4GB, UNUSABLE regions will be 
> >>> removed. */
> >>> +        rc = rangeset_add_range(map, 0, max_pfn);
> >>> +        if ( rc )
> >>> +            panic("IOMMU inclusive mappings can't be added: %d\n",
> >>> +                  rc);
> >>> +    }
> >>>  
> >>> -    for ( i = 0, start = 0, count = 0; i < top; )
> >>> +    for ( i = 0; i < e820.nr_map; i++ )
> >>>      {
> >>> -        unsigned long pfn = pdx_to_pfn(i);
> >>> -        unsigned int perms = hwdom_iommu_map(d, pfn, max_pfn);
> >>> +        struct e820entry entry = e820.map[i];
> >>>  
> >>> -        if ( !perms )
> >>> -            /* nothing */;
> >>> -        else if ( paging_mode_translate(d) )
> >>> +        switch ( entry.type )
> >>>          {
> >>> -            int rc;
> >>> +        case E820_UNUSABLE:
> >>> +            if ( !iommu_hwdom_inclusive || PFN_DOWN(entry.addr) > 
> >>> max_pfn )
> >>> +                continue;
> >>
> >> The !iommu_hwdom_inclusive part isn't really needed here, is it? The ...
> > 
> > Nor the PFN_DOWN(entry.addr) > max_pfn.
> 
> Hmm, I couldn't convince myself that could also be dropped.

We never map unusable regions, so it's always fine to remove them from
the rangeset.  The condition was just a way to exit early and avoid
the rangeset_remove_range() call.

> >>> -            rc = p2m_add_identity_entry(d, pfn,
> >>> -                                        perms & IOMMUF_writable ? 
> >>> p2m_access_rw
> >>> -                                                                : 
> >>> p2m_access_r,
> >>> -                                        0);
> >>> +            rc = rangeset_remove_range(map, PFN_DOWN(entry.addr),
> >>> +                                       PFN_DOWN(entry.addr + entry.size 
> >>> - 1));
> >>
> >> ... call here would then simply be a no-op, as it looks. And things would
> >> overall look more safe if the removal was skipped for fewer reasons.
> > 
> > OK, the removal can be done unconditionally if so desired.
> > 
> >>> @@ -605,7 +532,7 @@ void __hwdom_init arch_iommu_hwdom_init(struct domain 
> >>> *d)
> >>>      rangeset_destroy(map);
> >>>  
> >>>      /* Use if to avoid compiler warning */
> >>> -    if ( iommu_iotlb_flush_all(d, flush_flags) )
> >>> +    if ( iommu_iotlb_flush_all(d, map_data.flush_flags) )
> >>>          return;
> >>>  }
> >>
> >> Ah yes, here is said change. But I think for correctness this wants
> >> moving to the earlier patch.
> > 
> > OK, so something like:
> > 
> > map_data.flush_flags |= flush_flags;
> 
> Or simply drop flush_flags here right away (read: replace by map.flush_flags).

Right, OK, that will lead to some small changes to existing code which
I wanted to avoid in the context of just adding new code to deal with
a rangeset, but anyway, if that's preferred I will adjust.

Thanks, Roger.