On 12.08.19 22:46, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Oleksandr,
Hi, Julien
On 8/12/19 1:01 PM, Oleksandr wrote:
On 12.08.19 14:11, Julien Grall wrote:
On 02/08/2019 17:39, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
From: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshche...@epam.com>
This patch adds minimal required support to General IOMMU framework
to be able to handle a case when IOMMU driver requesting deferred
probing for a device.
In order not to pull Linux's error code (-EPROBE_DEFER) to Xen
we have chosen -EAGAIN to be used for indicating that device
probing is deferred.
This is needed for the upcoming IPMMU driver which may request
deferred probing depending on what device will be probed the first
(there is some dependency between these devices, Root device must be
registered before Cache devices. If not the case, driver will deny
further Cache device probes until Root device is registered).
As we can't guarantee a fixed pre-defined order for the device nodes
in DT, we need to be ready for the situation where devices being
probed in "any" order.
Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshche...@epam.com>
---
xen/common/device_tree.c | 1 +
xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/iommu.c | 35
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
xen/include/asm-arm/device.h | 6 +++++-
xen/include/xen/device_tree.h | 1 +
4 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/common/device_tree.c b/xen/common/device_tree.c
index e107c6f..6f37448 100644
--- a/xen/common/device_tree.c
+++ b/xen/common/device_tree.c
@@ -1774,6 +1774,7 @@ static unsigned long __init
unflatten_dt_node(const void *fdt,
/* By default the device is not protected */
np->is_protected = false;
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&np->domain_list);
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&np->deferred_probe);
I am not entirely happy to add a new list_head field per node just
for the benefits of boot code. Could we re-use domain_list (with a
comment in the code and appropriate ASSERT)?
Agree that only boot code uses deferred_probe field. I will consider
re-using domain_list. Could you please clarify regarding ASSERT
(where to put and what to check).
What I meant is adding an ASSERT to check that np->domain_list is at
empty at least before trying to add in the list. This would help to
debug any potential issue if we end up to use domain_list earlier in
the future. I can't see why it would as iommu is called earlier, but
who knows :).
Got it. Thank you for clarification.
+
static const struct iommu_ops *iommu_ops;
const struct iommu_ops *iommu_get_ops(void)
@@ -42,7 +48,7 @@ void __init iommu_set_ops(const struct iommu_ops
*ops)
int __init iommu_hardware_setup(void)
{
- struct dt_device_node *np;
+ struct dt_device_node *np, *tmp;
int rc;
unsigned int num_iommus = 0;
@@ -51,6 +57,33 @@ int __init iommu_hardware_setup(void)
rc = device_init(np, DEVICE_IOMMU, NULL);
if ( !rc )
num_iommus++;
+ else if (rc == -EAGAIN)
+ /*
+ * Driver requested deferred probing, so add this
device to
+ * the deferred list for further processing.
+ */
+ list_add(&np->deferred_probe, &deferred_probe_list);
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Process devices in the deferred list if at least one
successfully
+ * probed device is present.
+ */
I think this can turn into an infinite loop if all device in
deferred_probe_list still return -EDEFER_PROBE and num_iommus is a
non-zero.
Agree.
A better condition would be to check that at least one IOMMU is
added at each loop. If not, then we should bail with an error
because it likely means something is buggy.
Sounds reasonable. Will do.
Just to clarify:
>>> A better condition would be to check that at least one IOMMU is
added at each loop.
Maybe, not only added (rc == 0), but driver didn't request deferred
probe (rc != -EAGAIN).
I think adding an IOMMU is enough. If you return an error other than
-EAGAIN here after deferring probing, then you are likely going to
fail at the next loop. So better to stop early.
It makes sense.
I realize this not what the current code is doing (I know I wrote it
;)). But I am not sure it is sane to continue if only part of the
IOMMUs are initialized. Most likely you will see an error much later
that may be not trivial to find out.
Imagine you want to passthrough you network card to a guest but the
IOMMU initialization failed...
Oh, agree.
As I understand, the new strict logic would be the following:
If initialization for at least one IOMMU device failed (device_init
returns an error other than -EAGAIN), we should stop and return an error
to upper layer (even if num_iommus > 0). No matter whether it is during
the first attempt or after deferring probe. We don't allow the "I/O
virtualisation" to be enabled (iommu_enabled == true) with only part of
the IOMMU devices being initialized. Is my understanding correct?
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
--
Regards,
Oleksandr Tyshchenko
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
