On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 17:05 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 17:54 +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 09:59:00PM -0500, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > I *hate* the bizarre calling convention for iommu_unmap(). Is it > > > actually clearly documented anywhere? Why on earth is it not just > > > returning void, and expected to unmap what it was *asked* to unmap? > > > > Yeah, I agree that this should be documented since it is quite > > non-standard/non-obvious behaviour of a function. The reason the > > interface was implemented this way is that the caller should not need to > > know (or keep track of) the page-size which was used to map a given iova. > > Why would it ever care? If it *happens* to map something that can use > large pages, yay!. If it subsequently breaks apart those large pages by > unmapping 4KiB in the middle, let the IOMMU driver break that apart.
Can this be done atomically? I thought part of the reason for this interface was that iommu drivers typically couldn't replace a huge page with multiple smaller pages in the presence of DMA. > And why are we not allowed to unmap more than a single page at a time? > > Doing unmaps in small pieces (with a full flush between every one) is > *horribly* slow. While we call iommu_unmap with PAGE_SIZE, we certainly expect that larger chunks will be used if they were mapped that way. > > So the interface is basically, that you give an iova and a size and the > > iommu driver unmaps _at_least_ a region of that size. But if you ask for > > a 4k region which is mapped by a 2M page then the whole 2M are unmapped. > > The return value tells you how much was actually unmapped. > > > > Not the best interface, I know. We should come up with a better way to > > handle this. > > Seriously, just the address and the size. Let the IOMMU code deal with > whether it can *actually* use large pages on the particular set of > IOMMUs that are in use for the devices you've added to the domain so > far. You're contradicting yourself here. Just let the iommu deal with it, but now you're raising concerns that Intel may be mixing super page IOMMU hardware with non-super page IOMMU hardware on the same box, so I do need to be concerned, yet there's no interface to discover super page support. What happens if my IOMMU domain makes use of super pages and then I add a new device behind a new IOMMU without hardware super page support? We have the same problem with snoop control already. There's no atomic re-mapping interface, so KVM just pretends it can unmap and remap without anyone noticing. Thanks, Alex _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
