On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 08:09:29PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > On 04/16/2015 04:07 PM, David Gibson wrote: > >On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 04:30:56PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > >>At the moment the iommu_table struct has a set_bypass() which enables/ > >>disables DMA bypass on IODA2 PHB. This is exposed to POWERPC IOMMU code > >>which calls this callback when external IOMMU users such as VFIO are > >>about to get over a PHB. > >> > >>The set_bypass() callback is not really an iommu_table function but > >>IOMMU/PE function. This introduces a iommu_table_group_ops struct and > >>adds a set_ownership() callback to it which is called when an external > >>user takes control over the IOMMU. > > > >Do you really need separate ops structures at both the single table > >and table group level? The different tables in a group will all > >belong to the same basic iommu won't they? > > > IOMMU tables exist alone in VIO. Also, the platform code uses just a table > (or it is in bypass mode) and does not care about table groups. It looked > more clean for myself to keep them separated. Should I still merge > those?
Ok, that sounds like a reasonable argument for keeping them separate,
at least for now.
> >>This renames set_bypass() to set_ownership() as it is not necessarily
> >>just enabling bypassing, it can be something else/more so let's give it
> >>more generic name. The bool parameter is inverted.
> >>
> >>The callback is implemented for IODA2 only. Other platforms (P5IOC2,
> >>IODA1) will use the old iommu_take_ownership/iommu_release_ownership API.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru>
> >>---
> >> arch/powerpc/include/asm/iommu.h | 14 +++++++++++++-
> >> arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c | 30
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> >> drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_spapr_tce.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++----
> >> 3 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/iommu.h
> >>b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/iommu.h
> >>index b9e50d3..d1f8c6c 100644
> >>--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/iommu.h
> >>+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/iommu.h
> >>@@ -92,7 +92,6 @@ struct iommu_table {
> >> unsigned long it_page_shift;/* table iommu page size */
> >> struct iommu_table_group *it_group;
> >> struct iommu_table_ops *it_ops;
> >>- void (*set_bypass)(struct iommu_table *tbl, bool enable);
> >> };
> >>
> >> /* Pure 2^n version of get_order */
> >>@@ -127,11 +126,24 @@ extern struct iommu_table *iommu_init_table(struct
> >>iommu_table * tbl,
> >>
> >> #define IOMMU_TABLE_GROUP_MAX_TABLES 1
> >>
> >>+struct iommu_table_group;
> >>+
> >>+struct iommu_table_group_ops {
> >>+ /*
> >>+ * Switches ownership from the kernel itself to an external
> >>+ * user. While onwership is enabled, the kernel cannot use IOMMU
> >>+ * for itself.
> >>+ */
> >>+ void (*set_ownership)(struct iommu_table_group *table_group,
> >>+ bool enable);
> >
> >The meaning of "enable" in a function called "set_ownership" is
> >entirely obscure.
>
> Suggest something better please :) I have nothing better...
Well, given it's "set_ownershuip" you could have "owner" - that would
want to be an enum with OWNER_KERNEL and OWNER_VFIO or something
rather than a bool.
Or you could leave it a bool but call it "allow_bypass".
>
>
> >
> >>+};
> >>+
> >> struct iommu_table_group {
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_IOMMU_API
> >> struct iommu_group *group;
> >> #endif
> >> struct iommu_table tables[IOMMU_TABLE_GROUP_MAX_TABLES];
> >>+ struct iommu_table_group_ops *ops;
> >> };
> >>
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_IOMMU_API
> >>diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c
> >>b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c
> >>index a964c50..9687731 100644
> >>--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c
> >>+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c
> >>@@ -1255,10 +1255,8 @@ static void pnv_pci_ioda_setup_dma_pe(struct pnv_phb
> >>*phb,
> >> __free_pages(tce_mem, get_order(TCE32_TABLE_SIZE * segs));
> >> }
> >>
> >>-static void pnv_pci_ioda2_set_bypass(struct iommu_table *tbl, bool enable)
> >>+static void pnv_pci_ioda2_set_bypass(struct pnv_ioda_pe *pe, bool enable)
> >> {
> >>- struct pnv_ioda_pe *pe = container_of(tbl->it_group, struct pnv_ioda_pe,
> >>- table_group);
> >> uint16_t window_id = (pe->pe_number << 1 ) + 1;
> >> int64_t rc;
> >>
> >>@@ -1286,7 +1284,8 @@ static void pnv_pci_ioda2_set_bypass(struct
> >>iommu_table *tbl, bool enable)
> >> * host side.
> >> */
> >> if (pe->pdev)
> >>- set_iommu_table_base(&pe->pdev->dev, tbl);
> >>+ set_iommu_table_base(&pe->pdev->dev,
> >>+ &pe->table_group.tables[0]);
> >> else
> >> pnv_ioda_setup_bus_dma(pe, pe->pbus, false);
> >> }
> >>@@ -1302,13 +1301,27 @@ static void pnv_pci_ioda2_setup_bypass_pe(struct
> >>pnv_phb *phb,
> >> /* TVE #1 is selected by PCI address bit 59 */
> >> pe->tce_bypass_base = 1ull << 59;
> >>
> >>- /* Install set_bypass callback for VFIO */
> >>- pe->table_group.tables[0].set_bypass = pnv_pci_ioda2_set_bypass;
> >>-
> >> /* Enable bypass by default */
> >>- pnv_pci_ioda2_set_bypass(&pe->table_group.tables[0], true);
> >>+ pnv_pci_ioda2_set_bypass(pe, true);
> >> }
> >>
> >>+static void pnv_ioda2_set_ownership(struct iommu_table_group *table_group,
> >>+ bool enable)
> >>+{
> >>+ struct pnv_ioda_pe *pe = container_of(table_group, struct pnv_ioda_pe,
> >>+ table_group);
> >>+ if (enable)
> >>+ iommu_take_ownership(table_group);
> >>+ else
> >>+ iommu_release_ownership(table_group);
> >>+
> >>+ pnv_pci_ioda2_set_bypass(pe, !enable);
> >>+}
> >>+
> >>+static struct iommu_table_group_ops pnv_pci_ioda2_ops = {
> >>+ .set_ownership = pnv_ioda2_set_ownership,
> >>+};
> >>+
> >> static void pnv_pci_ioda2_setup_dma_pe(struct pnv_phb *phb,
> >> struct pnv_ioda_pe *pe)
> >> {
> >>@@ -1376,6 +1389,7 @@ static void pnv_pci_ioda2_setup_dma_pe(struct pnv_phb
> >>*phb,
> >> }
> >> tbl->it_ops = &pnv_iommu_ops;
> >> iommu_init_table(tbl, phb->hose->node);
> >>+ pe->table_group.ops = &pnv_pci_ioda2_ops;
> >> iommu_register_group(&pe->table_group, phb->hose->global_number,
> >> pe->pe_number);
> >>
> >>diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_spapr_tce.c
> >>b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_spapr_tce.c
> >>index 9f38351..d5d8c50 100644
> >>--- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_spapr_tce.c
> >>+++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_spapr_tce.c
> >>@@ -535,9 +535,22 @@ static int tce_iommu_attach_group(void *iommu_data,
> >> goto unlock_exit;
> >> }
> >>
> >>- ret = iommu_take_ownership(table_group);
> >>- if (!ret)
> >>- container->grp = iommu_group;
> >>+ if (!table_group->ops || !table_group->ops->set_ownership) {
> >>+ ret = iommu_take_ownership(table_group);
> >>+ } else {
> >>+ /*
> >>+ * Disable iommu bypass, otherwise the user can DMA to all of
> >>+ * our physical memory via the bypass window instead of just
> >>+ * the pages that has been explicitly mapped into the iommu
> >>+ */
> >>+ table_group->ops->set_ownership(table_group, true);
> >
> >And here to disable bypass you call it with enable=true, so it doesn't
> >even have the same meaning as it used to.
>
>
> I do not disable bypass per se (even if it what set_ownership(true) does) as
> it is IODA business and VFIO has no idea about it. I do take control over
> the group. I am not following you here - what used to have the same
> meaning?
Well, in set_bypass, the enable parameter was whether bypass was
enabled. Here you're setting enable to true, when you want to
*disable* bypass (in the existing case). If the "enable" parameter
isn't about enabling bypass, it's meaning is even more confusing than
I thought.
> >Plus, you should fold the logic to call the callback if necessary into
> >iommu_take_ownership().
>
>
> I really want to keep VFIO stuff out of arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c as much
> as possible as it is for platform DMA/IOMMU, not VFIO (which got SPAPR
> driver for that). ops->set_ownership() is one of these things.
What's VFIO specific about this fragment - it's just if you have the
callback, call it, otherwise fall back to the default.
> iommu_take_ownership()/iommu_release_ownership() are helpers for old-style
> commercially-unsupported P5IOC2/IODA1, and this is kind of a hack while
> ops->set_ownership() is an interface for VFIO to do dynamic windows thing.
Can you put their logic into a set_ownership callback for IODA1 then?
> If it makes sense, I could fold the previous patch into this one and move
> iommu_take_ownership()/iommu_release_ownership() to vfio_iommu_spapr_tce.c,
> should I? Or leave things are they are now.
That sounds like it might make sense.
>
>
> >>+ ret = 0;
> >>+ }
> >>+
> >>+ if (ret)
> >>+ goto unlock_exit;
> >>+
> >>+ container->grp = iommu_group;
> >>
> >> unlock_exit:
> >> mutex_unlock(&container->lock);
> >>@@ -572,7 +585,11 @@ static void tce_iommu_detach_group(void *iommu_data,
> >> table_group = iommu_group_get_iommudata(iommu_group);
> >> BUG_ON(!table_group);
> >>
> >>- iommu_release_ownership(table_group);
> >>+ /* Kernel owns the device now, we can restore bypass */
> >>+ if (!table_group->ops || !table_group->ops->set_ownership)
> >>+ iommu_release_ownership(table_group);
> >>+ else
> >>+ table_group->ops->set_ownership(table_group, false);
> >
> >Likewise fold this if into iommu_release_ownership().
> >
> >> unlock_exit:
> >> mutex_unlock(&container->lock);
> >
>
>
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
pgpppZPfr9zJQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
