Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/18] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Support domains with shared CDs

From: Jason Gunthorpe <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 13:55:13 -0300

On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 09:56:50AM +0000, Zhang, Tina wrote:

> > Possibly what we should do is conver the u32 pasid in the mm_struct to a
> > struct iommu_mm_data * and put alot more stuff in there. eg a linked list of
> > all SVA domains.

> If we are going to have 1:1 between SVA domain and pasid, why we
> need a linked list of all SVA domains? Would a SVA domain pointer be
> enough?

Kevin asked this, we can't assume that a single SVA domain is going to
work in a multi-iommu-driver system, which we are trying to enable at
the core level..
 
> I've got a patch-set which takes this suggestion to add an
> iommu_mm_data struct field to mm_struct. I'll send it out for review
> soon. The motivation of that patch-set is to let the
> invalidate_range() callback use the SVA domain referenced by
> mm->iommu_mm_data->sva_domain to do per-iommu IOTLB invalidation.

Huh?

You are supposed to put the struct mmu_notifier inside the sva_domain
struct and use container_of().

This is another reason why I'd prefer we de-duplicate SVA domains at
the core code level as duplicitive notifiers are expensive..

Please don't add stuff to the mm just for this reason.

Jason

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel